From: Mark Bromley 12 July 2001
NMD Update
These are busy times in the world of missile defence, but I've tried to condense some of the key events of the last two weeks into the following six items.
The first item is a piece from the Associated Press outlining the general direction the US is now taking with regards to missile defence. It notes the emphasis that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is placing on testing a variety of systems as opposed to rapid deployment.
The second piece reports on the recent announcement of a decision to construct a third testing facility in Alaska and the possible implications that this could have for US compliance with the ABM Treaty.
Item three details the recent announcement of July 14th as the date of the next test of the land based missile defence system developed under the Clinton administration. The system has failed its last two tests and there is strong pressure for a success in advance of President Bush?s imminent visit to Europe.
The next article discusses a recent vote at the parliamentary assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The US delegation?s efforts to remove mention of the ABM Treaty from a resolution on European security received a setback when several Western European allies joined Russia in calling for continued adherence to the Treaty.
Items five details the recent debate over missile defence that has taken place in the UK House of Parliament. The British government came under strong pressure from Parliament to voice concerns over US proposals more strongly. The UK Foreign Secretary was forced to concede that he would raise some of the issues when he next meets with his US counterpart.
The last piece is a series of excerpts from the recent debates. It includes the text of the most recent Early Day Motion (EDM), asking the UK Government to take a stronger line with the US. The EDM has now been signed by 253 MPs and is close to having the signatures of the majority of Labour MPs.
1) 'Rumsfeld Charts Missile Defense Course', AP, July 8 2001
2) 'Pentagon to Seek Money for Testing Missile Defense', New York Times, July 10, 2001
3) 'Pentagon Sets Missile Defense Test', AP, July 6, 2001
4) "Europe Rebuffs Plan To Drop ABM Treaty," Washington Times, July 9, 2001
5) 'Straw to Take UK Concerns to US', Financial Times, 10 July 2001
6) Excerpts From Recent UK House of Commons Debates on Missile Defence
1) 'Rumsfeld Charts Missile Defense Course', AP, July 8 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration wants to greatly expand the number and kinds of testing it believes is needed to build effective missile defenses, and is willing to spend billions more to do it.
In a sense, military planners have gone back to the drawing board to fulfill President Bush's goal of creating a reliable defense against ballistic missile attack on the United States, its allies and U.S. forces abroad.
The Bush administration sees no less urgency in obtaining a missile defense capability. But after months of reviewing options and studying the Clinton administration's approach, the Pentagon has decided to explore a wider range of technologies before deciding when the system could be ready for use.
``The focus of missile defense is no longer on deployment,'' says Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, which manages the Pentagon's missile defense work.
The focus is on testing, and lots of it. ``It is going to be structured and disciplined,'' Lehner said.
It is also going to be expensive.
Intercept tests conducted during the Clinton administration cost about $100 million apiece. The Bush administration envisions more elaborate and more frequent tests.
The proposed 2002 defense budget submitted to Congress on June 27 provides $8.3 billion for missile defense, a nearly 40 percent increase over the current budget. It would be expected to take tens of billions more before a system is ready for use, although the administration has provided no firm figure.
For starters, the Pentagon is piecing together a plan to create a Pacific ``test bed'' -- a collection of test ranges from Fort Greeley and Kodiak Island in Alaska to Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., to Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands -- to pursue more realistic missile intercept tests.
Up to now, the only flight tests of interceptors designed to shoot down long-range missiles have involved launching an unarmed target missile from Vandenberg and trying to hit it with an interceptor launched from Kwajalein.
Just such a test is scheduled for July 14 -- the first intercept attempt in 12 months. Last July's attempt failed, and several weeks later President Clinton announced that the technology was not sufficiently mature to go ahead with deploying missile defenses.
Clinton was operating under a congressional requirement that he deploy a missile defense as soon as it was technologically feasible.
His administration chose to focus the bulk of its missile defense effort on a ground-based interceptor designed to collide with a hostile missile outside the earth's atmosphere during the midcourse of its flight. It did so because that technology is more advanced than others, such as interceptors fired from ships or lasers fired from satellites or airplanes.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has decided that the midcourse system alone is insufficient to provide global protection.
He wants to build a ``layered'' system -- a combination of missile defense weapons. Some would be designed to attack a ballistic missile in the boost phase of its flight while it is easiest to detect, others in the descent phase and still others in midcourse. Some of these anti-missile weapons would be based on land, others at sea, others possibly aboard aircraft.
``As we proceed in time, and technologies are proven or disproven, we narrow down heading toward a solution,'' the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, Pete Aldridge, told reporters late last month.
Lehner said the Pentagon is aiming for deployment sometime between 2004 and 2008, but it has not firm target date.
In its new approach, the Pentagon will not only pursue different combinations of missile defense technologies -- some well advanced, some largely untried -- but also test them in ways not done before.
For example, the Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, about 250 miles south of Anchorage, Alaska, would be used to launch target missiles over the Pacific. Kodiak also would have interceptors for test flights against target missiles launched from Vandenberg in California toward Kwajalein.
The Pentagon also would use Fort Greeley, about 100 miles southeast of Fairbanks, Alaska, as a site from which to launch ground-based interceptors at target missiles fired from an aircraft.
The government decided in 1995 to close Fort Greeley, but the 2001 defense supplemental bill before Congress now contains language permitting the secretary of defense to retain the base for missile defense purposes.
This more aggressive testing effort reflects Bush's determination to ``set aside'' the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which forbids the testing of missile defense weaponry from other than fixed points on land. Thus the Kwajalein-to-Vandenberg approach is allowed, but not testing from aircraft or ships.
Even more fundamentally, the ABM treaty bans any missile defense that is designed to protect an entire nation.
Having declared the ABM treaty a Cold War relic, the administration plans to go ahead with testing without regard to treaty limitations, although it has not yet said definitely that it will withdraw from the treaty. It hopes to persuade the Russians to either amend it or to replace it with a new ``framework'' in which the United States, its allies and Russia could pursue missile defenses cooperatively.
The treaty's limitations are not an immediate problem because testing
of the kind that would violate the limits is not likely to be ready for
another year or more.
2) 'Pentagon to Seek Money for Testing Missile Defense', By James Dao, New York Times, July 10, 2001
WASHINGTON, July 9 - The Pentagon is preparing to ask Congress for money to build a missile defense test site in Alaska that could also become the command center for a working antimissile system as early as 2004, military officials said.
If it becomes operational, the site will be a clear violation of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which allows some testing of antimissile technology but forbids deployment of a shield against long-range missiles in any state except North Dakota.
Despite that, the proposal has won qualified support from some influential arms control advocates and missile defense skeptics, suggesting that it could blunt Democratic opposition in Congress to President Bush's missile defense plans.
John B. Rhinelander, a lawyer who advised ABM negotiators in 1972 and is a leading arms control advocate, said in an interview that the new Pentagon proposal was so limited in scope that the Russians were not likely to worry that it could effectively counter their nuclear force of about 6,000 weapons. The Pentagon plan calls for installing 10 or fewer interceptors at Fort Greely, near Fairbanks.
As a result, Mr. Rhinelander argued, the Russians may be willing to amend the ABM treaty to allow deployment of such a small system even as close to their borders as Alaska. That would allow the Bush administration to claim victory while keeping the current arms control system largely intact.
"I think this is a more ingenious plan, and one that does less violation to the treaty, than anything I can think of," Mr. Rhinelander said. "Ten launchers is peanuts. The Russians will object initially, but hopefully they will accept this concept. And we will have this behind us. Basically the treaty will be preserved, with this one wrinkle."
But many other arms control advocates have attacked the proposal as an effort by the administration to deploy a missile defense system quickly under the guise of improving testing. Many Democrats have urged the Pentagon to conduct more realistic tests on antimissile technology, while conservative Republicans have demanded immediate deployment of a rudimentary system.
"I think they are trying to trap us in our own rhetoric," an aide to one Democratic senator said.
Joseph Cirincione, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "I think it's a transparent ploy to abrogate the treaty. There is no compelling reason to put a test site in Alaska."
Under the Bush plan, which has been outlined in briefings to reporters and Congressional aides but not yet detailed in budget documents, the Pentagon would build missile test sites on Kodiak Island, off Alaska's southern coast, and at Fort Greely in central Alaska. The Wall Street Journal reported on the plan today.
The plan calls for using launch sites on Kodiak to fire target missiles toward the continental United States and interceptors to shoot down test missiles coming toward Alaska from either California or Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific. Those flight tests would more realistically simulate the speed and trajectory of weapons launched from, say, North Korea, than do current tests, in which missiles are launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California toward Kwajalein, Pentagon officials said. The next flight test between Vandenberg and Kwajalein is scheduled for Saturday night.
In a more controversial element of the plan, the Pentagon would also build silos and missile storage facilities for about five interceptors at Fort Greely, which military planners view as the likely base for a system of ground-launched interceptors capable of defending the nation. Pentagon officials say Fort Greely would initially be used as simply a storage site and command center for launching test missiles from Kodiak.
But if development of antimissile technology proceeded on schedule, the Bush administration would consider declaring Fort Greely a working missile defense system as early as 2004, if there was credible evidence of a missile threat to the United States, Pentagon officials said.
"If you face an emergency and had some confidence in these interceptors, then they could be used as an emergency missile defense," said Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
The Pentagon is also expanding testing on other missile defense technologies, including a laser that would be mounted on the nose of a Boeing 747 and interceptors that could be launched from Navy destroyers. If those technologies developed quickly, they also might be put into operation in the next four to five years, Colonel Lehner said.
The Pentagon is still drawing up the detailed budget documents that will spell out how much money it needs to start work on the Alaska sites. The Bush administration is seeking to increase spending on missile defense by 57 percent, to $8.3 billion, mostly for research and development.
Pentagon officials said the Defense Department might ask Congress for permission to begin work soon, to take advantage of the final weeks of Alaska's short construction season. Such work would probably be limited to cutting trees and grading landscape, the officials said.
Some arms control advocates contend that under the ABM Treaty, the United States must seek Russian approval to build new test sites. They also assert that any work on such test sites will violate the treaty if the sites are intended to become part of a working missile defense system.
But some experts say that the treaty is not clear on those issues, meaning disputes are likely to rage no matter what the administration does.
"It is a question that doesn't have an answer," said Amy Woolf, a defense specialist for the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan agency of Congress, when she was asked if building a test site at Fort Greely would violate the treaty.
"Whatever we say, the Russians are likely to disagree with," Ms. Woolf added. "It's a question of how you want to handle the political fallout from that."
Some powerful Democrats, including Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have said they will oppose any defense appropriations that might violate the ABM Treaty. Mr. Levin's office said today that he had not received enough information about the Alaska proposal to know whether it would violate the treaty.
In a sharp exchange during a committee hearing last month, Mr. Levin repeatedly asked Mr. Rumsfeld whether any action in the 2002 budget might violate the treaty. Mr. Rumsfeld initially said no, but then qualified his answer.
"One or more of the activities may - eventually will, the good Lord willing - run up against the treaty and be a violation," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
"Before that happens," he continued, "we would have been in discussions
with the Russians. And we fully intend that we would have fashioned some
sort of a framework to move beyond the treaty."
3) 'Pentagon Sets Missile Defense Test', AP, July 6, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) - After months of delay, the Pentagon said Friday it will attempt to shoot down a missile outside the Earth's atmosphere on July 14, the first missile defense test of its kind since a failed intercept one year ago.
A modified Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missile carrying a mock warhead and a single decoy will be launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., and about 20 minutes later an interceptor missile carrying a prototype ``kill vehicle'' will launch from Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific.
If all goes as planned the ``kill vehicle'' - a computer-guided device with its own sensors - will crash into the ICBM about 10 minutes later about 140 miles above the Pacific Ocean, disintegrating the target by the force of impact.
The decoy aboard the ICBM is meant to challenge the interceptor's sensors, which are designed to distinguish between warheads and decoys. Critics of missile defense say this is one of the hardest engineering challenges for the interceptor - to defeat simple measures to fool the sensors.
Also involved in the test will be a satellite-based missile warning system, a ground-based early warning radar, a prototype X-band radar on Kwajalein Atoll and a battle management system at Colorado Springs, Colo.
The July 14 test will not have as much at stake, politically, as last July's effort, which was the second consecutive failure. Based in part on that record, President Clinton announced last Sept. 1 that anti-missile technologies were not sufficiently advanced in testing to commit to deploying a missile defense.
President Bush,however, took office in January promising to pursue a more ambitious anti-missile program, and his proposed 2002 defense budget provides $8.3 billion for missile defense research and testing - a nearly 40 percent increase over this year.
The previous intercept tests have cost about $100 million each. The Pentagon announced no price tag for the next one.
The failure last July was attributed to the warhead-busting ``kill vehicle'' not separating from the booster rocket. Because it did not separate, it never activated the sensors it uses to hunt down its target. The interceptor passed harmlessly by the target.
The reason for the failure was so unexpected that the three-star Air Force general in charge of the project told reporters minutes afterward that it was ``not even on my list'' of potential malfunctions.
A Jan. 19, 2000 intercept also failed. The Pentagon blamed moisture
inside the kill vehicle, which prevented it from using heat-seeking devices
to ``see'' its target. The first intercept test, on Oct. 3, 1999, succeeded
in striking the target.
4) "Europe Rebuffs Plan To Drop ABM Treaty," Washington Times, July 9, 2001
PARIS -- Several Western European nations joined Russia's allies yesterday in calling for continued adherence to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, dealing a rebuff to a U.S. congressional delegation and demonstrating again that the United States faces an uphill battle to win foreign support for its missile defense plan.
The show-of-hands vote came during a parliamentary assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), comprising legislators from 55 member states.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican, representing the United States, had sought to delete a paragraph in a draft resolution on European security that called on "participating States to maintain adherence to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty."
The Bush administration believes the Cold War-era treaty must be amended or abrogated in order for the United States to go ahead with its plans for a national missile defense.
Russia and its allies from Eastern Europe and Central Asia all opposed the Republican senator's amendment, as expected. But more troubling for the United States was substantial support for the ABM Treaty from across Western Europe.
There was no formal record of the show-of-hands vote, but a quick count showed the Bailey amendment was defeated by an almost 2-1 margin. The German delegation voted unanimously against the amendment while the British, the United States' staunchest allies in Europe, split their votes.
Much of the support for the U.S. position came from new members of NATO such as Poland, and aspiring NATO members such as Slovakia, which can ill afford to anger NATO's most powerful member.
During a debate before the vote, the European delegates voiced numerous complaints about Mr. Bush's missile defense plan and the way it has been presented. Among other things, they said:
* Washington's unilateral action has the feeling of a "dictat."
* If Washington has credible evidence of the threat of a limited missile attack from a rogue state, it hasn't shared it with its allies.
* A limited missile defense could provoke an arms race.
* The United States appears to be abandoning a security pact that has kept the peace for nearly 30 years without another security arrangement to replace it.
"We are strongly against [the Hutchison amendment.] There is no replacement for the structure of the ABM Treaty," said Rita Sussmuth, a member of Germany's right-of-center Christian Democratic Union who called for the United States to engage Russia in constructive dialogue over security concerns.
Mrs. Hutchison told the OSCE's security committee that the United States already was consulting with Russia on the missile defense plan. "We have no problems concerning dialogue regarding ABM and missile defense," she said.
But Andras Barsony, the Hungarian who drafted the original document, told The Washington Times he believed the Bush administration's talk of "dialogue" and "consultation" was little more than lip service.
"You can't do it through CNN," he said, accusing U.S. diplomats of simply telling American allies what they were planning to do "without giving a chance to answer."
Uta Zapf, a Social Democrat and chairman of the German parliament's committee on Disarmament and Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, was equally dismissive of the American approach.
"We don't want to do away with any treaty until a proper solution has
been found. To break the ABM Treaty because you think three rogue states
[might pose a threat in the future] is not the way. I don't see the need
to spend $180 billion to stop three small states," she said, referring
to North Korea, Iran and Iraq. 5) 'Straw to Take UK Concerns to US', Financial Times, 10 July 2001
Britain's relationship with the US could be tested after the government
agreed to relay the concerns of Labour MPs about Washington's plans for
defence against rogue nuclear states.
Jack Straw, foreign secretary, indicated he would use a meeting on Wednesday
in Washington with Colin Powell, US secretary of state, to pass on their
concerns.
Mr Straw, pressed by the Conservatives, declined to say if he was in
favour in principle of US plans for missile defence against rogue nuclear
states such as Iraq.
Tony Blair signalled the government's conditional support for the plans
during a meeting with George W. Bush, US president, in February.
But the prime minister has declined to say if Britain will co-operate
on the missile defences, which have been dubbed the "son of star wars".
The plans may involve the use of radar stations in the north of England,
but Mr Blair has said the government cannot declare its position until
detailed proposals are set out by the US.
Labour MPs used the first Commons question time with foreign ministers
since the election to register their opposition.
More than 250 MPs have signed a Commons early day motion expressing
concerns about Mr Bush's plans.
Malcolm Savidge, the Labour MP who tabled the motion, attacked Mr Bush's
plans and his rejection of the Kyoto protocol that seeks to tackle global
warming.
He asked Mr Straw to tell the US administration about "the concern that
star wars, in attempting to reduce a comparatively remote threat, might
increase far greater dangers and the wider worry that on a catalogue of
vital issues the Bush administration seems recklessly ready to either block
or breach international agreements which are essential to a safer and more
civilised future".
Kali Mountford, another Labour MP, told Mr Straw that concerns about
missile defences extended beyond parliament to the public.
She said there were concerns that the defences might be flawed technically
and fail to deal with rogue states, as well as deepen the problem of nuclear
proliferation.
"My postbag contains letters of three main concerns which he could raise
with the Americans on my behalf," said Ms Mountford.
"The first is we need a successful defence system and people are concerned
this is technically flawed. Second, that it will not achieve its target
of dealing with rogue states. And third, that it would cause proliferation
in nuclear weapons states."
She asked Mr Straw to "hammer home those points" to the US administration.
Mr Straw replied: "Those are entirely understandable concerns and I will
certainly ensure they are reflected in the discussions which I have."
However, the foreign secretary said Britain shared US concerns about
the threat posed by rogue nuclear states.
6) Excerpts From Recent UK House of Commons Debates on Missile Defence
(For full text of debates visit http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm)
House of Commons Written Answers 4 July 2001
Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President
Bush the concept of invulnerability through military supremacy in relation
to the weaponisation of space. [325]
The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. I believe that the conference
on disarmament is the appropriate forum for discussion of issues relating
to the military use of space, and support the creation of an ad hoc committee
to discuss the prevention of an arms race in outer space.
Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of
the dangers faced by the United Kingdom, as a target for foreign powers
as a result of acquiescing in the construction of two new radomes at Menwith
Hill. [334]
The Prime Minister: Two radomes have been constructed at RAF Menwith
Hill as part of the European relay ground station for the space based infra
red system, which is designed to detect the launch of ballistic missiles.
This updates an existing system. We assess that the implications for the
security of the UK have not significantly changed.
Prime Minister's Questions 4 July 2001
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South): On President Bush's madcap
scheme for missile defence, may I gently suggest to the Prime Minister
that, rather than our trying to act as an honest broker between the United
States and the European Union, British interests would be better served
by telling the Americans the truth, which is that it will not work, that
there are no takers and that the real threats to our security are climate
change, the AIDS pandemic and impoverishment caused by the grossly unfair
workings of the global market?
The Prime Minister: I agree--[Hon. Members: "Ah."] Perhaps I
can begin by stating the points on which I agree with my hon. Friend. I
agree with him about Kyoto, the AIDS pandemic and the impoverishment of
a large part of the world's population. That is precisely why, as my right
hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development explained
earlier, we are doing so much to combat AIDS in the developing world. We
are also pushing forward the Kyoto protocol and we have considerably increased
the amount of aid that we give the developing nations.
I am afraid that I do not agree that the Americans are wrong to identify
weapons of mass destruction as a genuine threat. They are a genuine threat.
[Interruption.] We need to be prepared to look at all systems that are
necessary--[Interruption.] Obviously I am delighted to have the support
of the Opposition. We must consider all offensive and defensive systems.
I also do not agree that it is wrong for us to act as an honest broker
between the United States and our European partners. It is an article of
faith for me--I believe this deeply--that when the US and the EU cannot
resolve their differences properly, the world is a less stable and less
prosperous place. It is important that we keep an open mind. We have not
yet received a proposal from the United States. When we do, we shall declare
our position on it. In the meantime, we shall do everything that we can
to bring the US and the EU closer together.
Oral Answers to Questions, Defence, House of Commons, 9 July 2001
Mr. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central): Does my right hon. Friend
accept that there is sufficient uncertainty in the technology in the programme
to make it difficult for us to draw definitive conclusions--certainly those
that would allow us to go ahead and support the scheme--and, in particular,
that that uncertainty, coupled with a lack of proper negotiation with the
Russians, is itself problematic for Europeans? If the Americans were to
abrogate the anti-ballistic missile treaty and if Russia then stepped back
and put its own missiles on hair-trigger alert, this uncertain long-term
technology would simply not be worth the massive increase in insecurity
in Europe.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): That
is precisely why the Government have not yet taken any decision on whether
to use assets in the United Kingdom for those purposes and why it makes
sense for us to await any decision by the United States, which must be
taken in the light of the available technology. I accept my hon. Friend's
assertion that there is little purpose in going to the trouble of taking
such a decision unless and until the United States has a system that it
is confident will work.
Oral Answers to Questions House of Commons, 10 Jul 2001
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): May I welcome and congratulate
the Foreign Secretary on his appointment? More than 250 Members of Parliament
have already signed early-day motion 23. With all due and delicate diplomacy,
will my right hon. Friend convey to our United States allies the concern
that star wars, in attempting to reduce a comparatively remote threat,
might increase far graver dangers? There is also a wider worry: that on
a catalogue of vital issues the Bush Administration seem recklessly ready
either to block or breach international agreements that are essential to
a safer and more civilised future and, indeed, to George Bush Snr's vision
of a "new world order."
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr.
Jack Straw): I thank my hon. Friend for his early remarks. I have of course
read the early-day motion, and I recognise the concerns expressed in it.
I must point out, however, that the motion endorses the unanimous conclusions
of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which included a commendation of the
Prime Minister's approach to the issue.
President George W. Bush has made very clear--he set this out again
at the NATO Council in June--his wish to proceed by co-operation and consultation
not only with the United Kingdom and other European allies but with China,
Russia and other major countries to the east. That is the right way forward.
EDM 23
MISSILE DEFENCE
Savidge/Malcolm
That this House expresses concern at President Bush's intention to move
beyond the constraints of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in developing
missile defence; and endorses the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign
Affairs Select Committee, which recommended that the Government voice the
grave doubts about NMD in the UK, questioned whether US plans to deploy
NMD represent an appropriate response to the proliferation problems faced
by the international community and recommended that the Government encourage
the USA to explore all ways of reducing the threat it perceives.
Signatures (253)
For full list of signatures visit http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=23
Mark BromleyBR> Analyst
British American Security Information Council (BASIC)
Lafone House
11-13 Leathermarket Street
London SE1 3HN
Phone: +44 (0)20 7407 2977
Fax: +44 (0)20 7407 2988
Website: http://www.basicint.org