Please note "BBC Breakfast with Frost" must be credited if any part of this transcript is used

DAVID FROST:

I'm now joined by the Liberal Democrat's foreign affairs and defence spokesman, the one and only Menzies Campbell. Good morning, Menzies.

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

Good morning.

DAVID FROST:

First of all, how do you read the trip?

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

Well, I think it was a success. I don't think it was a triumph, but it certainly was successful. President Bush himself used the words, we have a special relationship. And perhaps the only adverse note to be sounded was the noise of gnashing of teeth in Smith Square because the Conservatives very much hoped that Tony Blair would go to Camp David and find it very difficult to get on with George Bush. In fact the very opposite has turned out to be the case.

DAVID FROST:

And the rapid reaction force seems to have been receptively received, and at the same time what did you feel about, with your sort of different thoughts and doubts about the national missile defence?

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

Well, Tony Blair came away with two responsibilities after Camp David. The first was to sell NMD to the Europeans and the second was to make sure that the European rapid reaction force does not undermine NATO. These are two pretty formidable responsibilities. As far as NMD is concerned, we sometimes get the impression here in Britain that the American attitude is monolothic. There are quite a lot of serious political figures, like for example Senator Joe Byden, who is the senior Democrat on the foreign relations committee on the senate, who still has very considerable reservations. What I think will now happen is, there will be enormous emphasis on trying to cut a deal with Russia. The ABM treaty of 1972 which has been right at the centre of a lot of this discussion allows for amendment or even for withdrawal, but Mr Putin's a deal maker and I think what will now happen is that there will be a very considerable effort to try and find a way of accommodating Russian sensibilities, sensitivities, more correctly. China's a little more difficult. But I think the effort that Tony Blair will become now part of is how can we square it with the Russians?

DAVID FROST:

And in terms of the Russians, this proposal that was made this week that may be they've got an NMD that they could lend us as it were, that's, that's not taken seriously?

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

No. Great mischief-making, actually. And actually quite clever, in truth I mean if you think of diplomacy as the great game, then this was quite a clever piece to play in the great game. It's not serious, there was no technical support, there was nothing of that kind. But what I think we've all got to accept here, even people like me who have substantial reservations about NMD, is that the Bush administration is determined, if it's feasible, to put a system of missile defence in place, and if that's the case, then we've got to find ways of accommodating that within what's become essential a balance, a balance hoped, thankfully, of peace in the nuclear area. That's very difficult but we've got to set out minds to it.

DAVID FROST:

And at the same time, I mean, obviously, it's got to be tested technically and so there's no point in opposing it now, anyway because it's going to be tested and it might never get off the launching pad?

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

Even at its very best it's many, many years away. I mean, the present system is to try and use a bullet to shoot a bullet, effectively. But what's now being discussed is a system based on ship-borne radar which would have the effect of trying to take out missiles in the boost phase. These are enormously difficult technical achievements to try and get round. And of course the curiousity of NMD is that the political downside is felt at the moment, whereas the defence advantage is not something that it's likely to be achieved for many years to come.

DAVID FROST:

And one of the other problems, as people point out too, is for instance, the danger of a, a suitcase bomb is not covered by NMD, is it?

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

No. What people say, some people in America say, well, look, something like sarin, you remember sarin on the subway in Tokyo, that's much more of a risk. What the American response to that is, well, we're taking steps to try and deal with that risk but here's another risk, which they say, in fact, I heard them say at the Munich security conference just a couple of weeks ago, we have a moral obligation to provide this kind of defence for our people. One element which I don't think we heard very much about at Camp David is how one deals with the Chinese, because there's no doubt Chinese opposition to national missile defence goes very deep indeed. And they are threatening to increase their nuclear holdings and we may be able to cut some kind of deal with the Russians but I think it may be very difficult to find a way of accommodating the Chinese. And if they increase their missiles, there is always the risk of an Asian race with India responding and Pakistan responding in time.

DAVID FROST:

As they've done before in a more minor way, but what about if you'd been in the ministry of defence would you have signed on for the recent preventive raids on Iraq?

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

I think if your aircraft are in circumstances of danger and your air crew in circumstances of danger, you have to take every possible step to protect them. But I would have, and indeed I've been asking this rather more fundamental question for the last two years, why are we there at all? Because the ability to fly these no-fly zones is legally very doubtful. The Security Council resolution 688 on which this is based doesn't give express authority. And you should never use military force unless there's a clear political and strategic objective. There were reports two or three weeks ago that Britain was considering withdrawing from flying in the southern no-fly zone. What we've got is an absence of policy and I think Colin Powell, whom we saw a little earlier on the news bulletin, will be finding it very hard as he goes round Arab capitals in the next two or three days because in these capitals people believe that there is no proper policy and in particularly believe now that the Iraqi people have been the people who have suffered under the non-military sanctions, the humanitarian consequences for the Iraqi people are now politically unacceptable in Arab capitals.

DAVID FROST:

It may not be a strategy, but the long term dream is to get rid of Saddam, isn't it?

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

Absolutely. But in the meantime, all we can do is to seek to contain him. And I think it's right there's a policy of containment based on the credible threat of the use of military force. But what we should now have in my view is a sanctions regime which deals with military and dual use equipment, but which lifts the sanctions on non-military equipment.

DAVID FROST:

And here we have Colin Powell in Israel meeting Arial Sharon, but said earlier this morning the reports that Iraq may have nuclear weapons in three years underline the need to contain President Saddam Hussein. Now, those warnings always come forth but coming from Colin Powell, three years is a chilling date.

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

Well, and you've got, I mean Colin Powell, although he's chief, chairman of the chiefs of staff, he's not a hawk. And I can't imagine that this man gave that judgement unless it's based on the best quality intelligence. The inspection teams may no longer be there but that doesn't mean to say that there isn't a great deal of clandestine monitoring of what's going on in Iraq.

DAVID FROST:

One last question, Menzies, which is just the fact that if the Labour manifesto doesn't contain a commitment to a referendum on PR during the course of the next parliament, what will that do to Lib-Lab relations?

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

Well, Charles Kennedy, I think told you not all that long ago

DAVID FROST:

Yes

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

That's really a matter for the Labour Party. It was in their manifesto for the previous election. We expect them to repeat it in their manifesto

DAVID FROST:

but all bets would be off in terms of the relationship?

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

Well, let me put it this way. I'm not in the business, and never have been in politics to try to issue an ultimatum on an issue of this kind. But it would be very difficult even for the most enthusiastic supporters of co-operation to see co-operation going ahead in a meaningful and effective way if there was no renewal of the commitment to have a referendum on the electoral system. After all, the Jenkins report is there, it's on the table, it shows what can be done. Liberal Democrats expect that it's given the chance.

DAVID FROST:

Expect that it's given the chance. It seems to have fallen off the table at the moment.

MENZIES CAMPBELL:

Well, we will live in hope until we see the publication of the Labour manifesto.

DAVID FROST:

Thank you very much, Menzies, for being with us this morning.

END