In a highly anticipated speech, President George W. Bush reaffirmed
his administration’s commitment to deploying a missile-defense
shield.
Delivered in early May at the National Defense University in Washington,
D.C., the president’s speech generated headlines but, according
to observers and military analysts, left many unanswered questions
about how missile-defense issues would be approached during the
next four years. These questions dealt with what would happen if
the ABM treaty were abrogated, whether U.S. action on missile defense
would start another arms race, and what the role of diplomacy with
the European allies would be in the process.
Indicating plans to “move beyond the constraints” of
the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, Bush announced his
intentions to build “a new framework” for the development
and deployment of a missile-defense shield that would protect the
United States and NATO allies.
Bush dispatched delegations of U.S. representatives to meet with
allied governments around the globe. He sought to involve the allies
in discussions on how to alter or revoke the ABM treaty. The ABM
treaty, designed to prevent an all-out nuclear war between the Soviet
Union and the United States, was signed during the height of the
Cold War. Those who favor its alteration or annulment invariably
believe that the treaty is not valid, because the Soviet Union no
longer exists.
The missile shield that he wants, Bush said, is not to protect
U.S. interests from an attack by Russia, which is “no longer
our enemy,” but from ballistic-missile attacks by Third World
nations, so-called rogue states which are engaged in programs to
develop weapons of mass destruction. Rogue states identified by
the Pentagon are Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, North Korea and
Cuba.
There are only eight countries in the world armed with the most
dangerous nuclear missiles: The United States, India, Pakistan,
Israel, Great Britain, France, China and Russia.
ABM Treaty
Defense experts and politicians around the world are buzzing with
theories about how a U.S.-led missile-defense effort could play
out. A senior congressional official, who spoke on condition of
anonymity, said that the ABM treaty was outdated, because the threat
has changed from all-out nuclear war to so-called asymmetric threats,
such as terrorism and computer warfare. “The U.S. no longer
has a problem with Russia, and we are listening and working with
our allies to discuss the problems associated with terrorism,”
he said. “These are small steps. The president is making a
very determined effort.”
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the new chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, said he believes that the ABM treaty has kept
the United States secure for the past 30 years. He said that Bush
should not “undermine the hard-won strategic stability...with
unnecessary actions that would violate existing international agreements.”
Levin called attention to the findings of a bipartisan task force
on non-proliferation headed by former Sen. Howard Baker, R-Tenn.
The task force concluded that the most urgent threat to the United
States is not Russia or China, but the likelihood that Russian weapons
of mass destruction could be used by rogue states or terrorists,
against the U.S. homeland or U.S. interests abroad.
“If Russia were to cease dismantling its nuclear arsenal,”
as it has been doing since the end of the Cold War, “there
would be danger of more weapons and nuclear materials being diverted
and possibly used against us,” Levin said.
Levin also said that a missile-defense system could not defend
America from the most likely asymmetric threat, the use of “nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons—delivered by ships, planes,
trucks and suitcases.”
Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Bob Stump,
R-Az., does not agree with Levin’s view that deploying a missile-defense
shield would violate existing arms-control treaties. “This
agreement (ABM) was signed with the Soviet Union—a nation
that no longer exists—and was designed for a vastly different
strategic environment.
“Americans remain vulnerable to the whims of any nation with
a ballistic missile, and they will use it or threaten its use,”
he warned. “This is an immoral, indefensible policy that must
be ended. Let us get on with the task of defending America by funding
and building a national missile-defense system,” Stump said.
Though NATO Secretary-General George Robertson publicly has been
supportive of working with the United States on missile defense,
the NATO alliance is not likely to issue a blanket statement favoring
missile defense. A draft statement from NATO said the allies “welcome
the consultations initiated by President Bush on the U.S. strategic
review, including missile defense.
“We intend to pursue these consultations vigorously and welcome
the United States’ assurance that the views of allies will
be taken into account as it considers its plans further,”
the NATO statement said.
William Hartung, missile-defense expert and senior research fellow
at the World Policy Institute, believes that the United States is
“bullying the allies,” who may be pressured to support
a program they neither want nor can afford. “The U.S. is like
a bull in a china shop,” he explained. “Do you try to
calm it down or do you just let it do its damage?
“The European mood is trying to figure out the best way to
keep the U.S. from abdicating the ABM treaty,” Hartung said.
Lawrence Korb, director of national security studies at the Council
on Foreign Relations, said that, given how much money is spent on
defense in this country, “we are basically in an arms race
with ourselves.” Korb thinks that the United States spends
so much more on defense than any other country, that threats from
rogue or enemy nations are overplayed by the administration.
According to Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, a Washington,
D.C.-based think tank, the United States spends $291 billion on
national defense, while China spends $38 billion, Russia spends
$55 billion, and the rogue states, altogether, spend $14 billion.
Ivan Eland, defense analyst for the Cato Institute, a libertarian
think tank, favors a limited missile-defense system. He supports
an incremental renegotiation of the ABM treaty. A missile-defense
shield should “cover the United States to get maximum protection
against rogue states.”
Eland warns that, “if we build up big, there will be a worldwide
domino effect” in regions that have their own arms races,
such as in India and Pakistan and in the Middle East. Diplomacy
also would go a long way. “We should slow the process down
and allow the rogue states to become less rogue. North Korea has
already made overtures [to have arms reduction talks],” Eland
said.
Joseph Cirincione, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace’s non-proliferation project, said that the debate about
missile defense is essentially being argued between two camps. One
camp is composed of those who believe that Americans “face
a world of missiles, terror and madmen,” who want to be “freed
from the constraints imposed by a range of multi-lateral agreements
which, in their mind, limit U.S. power without limiting the power
of rogue nations.”
The other camp “wants to continue the system of building
interlocking treaties that Democrats and Republicans have constructed
together over the past 40 years, such as ABM and Kyoto.” Cirincione
referred to the views of the two camps as “paper vs. steel.”
European Allies
European nations have joined the debate on U.S. missile defense,
their opinions largely shaped by their own relationships with the
United States.
Silvio Berlusconi, the new prime minister of Italy, openly endorsed
Bush’s intentions to move forward on missile defense. Berlusconi’s
defense advisor, Antonio Martino, said a European homeland missile-defense
system is necessary for Italy’s security. “We believe
it is more important to us than it is to the United States,”
he said “[because] we are potentially more exposed to rogue
states.”
It was widely reported that Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great
Britain was supportive of the U.S.-led talks and of President Bush’s
plans in particular. In February, Blair gave his definitive statement
on missile defense, which was made in a joint press conference with
Bush at the White House. According to the British Embassy, Blair’s
comments still stood at press time: “I understand and share
the concerns of the president and the American administration about
weapons of mass destruction and nuclear proliferation,” he
said. “And I think it’s very important that we discuss
all the ways that we can deal with this threat, which is a real
threat and a present threat, both in relation to offensive and defensive
systems.”
However, not all in Britain are thoroughly supportive of U.S. missile-defense
plans. The foreign affairs committee within the British House of
Commons stated that the United States “cannot necessarily
assume unqualified U.K. cooperation with U.S. plans to deploy a
National Missile Defense (NMD) in the event of unilateral U.S. abrogation
of the ABM Treaty.”
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fisher said “plans for missile
defense must be coupled as much as possible with a drastic reduction
in offensive systems.” Fisher pointed out that Bush has declared
his intention to work closely with Russia and include China in the
planning, while including intensive consultation with the European
allies. “As I see it, the German government’s position
on missile defense has been validated by President Bush’s
speech,” he said.
Leo Welt, executive director of the German-American Business Council,
said that the Germans are “not too overjoyed” with the
prospect of being asked to contribute to an U.S.-European missile
shield. “In Germany, defense expenditures, as a result of
reunification, have been drastically reduced,” he said. However,
Welt indicated Germany’s willingness to work with the United
States. “Consultation between the two ministries of defense
has started,” he said. “It has come down to the technical
and financial feasibility” of deploying a shield. But, Welt
warned, “It is not in Germany’s interest to get involved
in an arms race. After so many years of the Cold War, it is not
a good thing to start another arms race,” he said.
A representative for a defense-consulting firm based in Paris said
that the French defense industry’s opinion on the matter can
be characterized as “pragmatic.” However, he said that
France wants to be involved in U.S. missile-defense initiatives,
because an NMD program would give a big strategic advantage to the
United States. “European industry will pressure its politicians
to move forward because of the obvious advantage of being involved
with such a program.” However, regional threats are not the
same for every nation, he said. “We see that the new [Bush]
administration strategy is more Pacific-oriented. North Korea is
the biggest threat to America. But the Middle East is the biggest
threat for Europe,” he said.