DATE=1/19/2000
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=U-S MISSILE DEFENSE
NUMBER=5-45272
BYLINE=DAVID GOLLUST
DATELINE=WHITE HOUSE
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:
INTRO: This week's failed test of a U-S missile
interceptor over the Pacific has again focused
attention on the controversial Pentagon program to
develop a limited system to protect the United States
against long-range ballistic missile attack.
President Clinton has promised a decision by this
summer on whether to deploy such a system, which has
strong support in Congress but is opposed by Russia
and China and even some U-S allies. V-O-A's David
Gollust has this report from the White House.
TEXT: The first full-scale test of the system last
October was considered only a partial success. And
Tuesday's failed intercept - attributed to a faulty
sensor - adds a new element of doubt as the Clinton
Administration moves toward its promised decision on
deployment expected in June.
The proposed National Missile Defense System - or N-M-
D - is intended to protect the United States from
potential attack from a nuclear-tipped missile fired
by a so-called "rogue" state, or a weapon launched in
error by one of the existing nuclear powers.
Though less ambitious than the now-abandoned "Star
Wars" project from the Cold-War era, the new system,
which would be operational in 2005, is hardly less
controversial.
Its congressional supporters say that any U-S
administration would be negligent in not to trying to
deal with the "rogue" missile threat. But opponents
contend it will not work, and will - among other
things - undermine relations with Russia, which
contends that the U-S system would violate the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile, or A-B-M, treaty.
While the debate swirls, senior administration
officials are non-committal about what President
Clinton's decision might be. At a university foreign
policy seminar this week, Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright said it is a complex mix of technical,
financial and political concerns:
/// ALBRIGHT ACTUALITY ///
Technology, the feasibility of it, is obviously
a part of it. But also the threat, the cost,
and its effect on our national security,
including how it affects arms control
agreements. So there are a number of criteria
on which this decision is going to be based.
And I think it's very important for everyone to
understand that the A-B-M treaty has been a
cornerstone of our arms control process. If one
were to go forward with the N-M-D, then
obviously there would have to be some
adjustments.
/// END ACT ///
The Clinton Administration has made overtures to
Moscow on amending the A-B-M treaty to accommodate the
program, which U-S officials stress is not aimed at
neutralizing Russia's still-formidable nuclear
arsenal. But the Russian response has been chilly,
and new acting President Vladimir Putin, in
particular, has been outspoken in his opposition to
treaty changes.
But leading Republicans insist the need for limited
missile defense outweighs concerns about the A-B-M
treaty or Russia's feelings. In an interview Sunday
on the C-N-N (Cable News Network) program "Late
Edition," Texas Governor George W. Bush - the leading
contender for the Republican presidential nomination
in national polls - said Moscow should not have a veto
over the U-S program:
/// BUSH ACT ///
I think it's very important for our country to
explain to the Russians that in the post Cold
War era, the threat of accidental launch or the
threat of a launch of a rogue nation will
destabilize parts of the world. And therefore
we must amend the A-B-M treaty so that we can
deploy theater-based anti-ballistic missile
systems. And if they don't agree in a
reasonable period of time, I'm going to make it
clear I'm going to withdraw.
/// END ACT ///
Mr. Bush gets support from conservative U-S defense
analysts, among them Baker Spring of Washington's
Heritage Foundation. He told V-O-A as many as 20
countries around the world could either develop or
purchase nuclear weapon and long-range missile
capabilities in the coming years, including Iran, Iraq
and North Korea - which has already tested a three-
stage missile. Mr. Spring says he thinks any Russian
response to a U-S deployment decision would be limited
to verbal condemnation:
/// SPRING ACTUALITY ///
I'm not afraid of a crisis with them. I think
they could at a rhetorical level react
negatively as they have to date. But I certainly
don't think that the reaction from the Russians
or the Chinese today would be any more of
concern to me than what the Soviet reaction was
when President Reagan announced the initiation
of the Strategic Defense Initiative program in
1983. We got a lot of very, very negative
rhetoric saying that they would never do arms
control. But in the end they ultimately signed
both the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty in 1987 and the START treaty with the
Bush Administration in 1992 with no specific
curtailing of the Strategic Defense Initiative
program.
/// END ACT ///
However, John Isaacs, president and arms control
spokesman for the liberal Council for a Livable World,
says the Clinton Administration has placed itself in a
political bind by promising a deployment decision by
June, when only limited testing data on the N-M-D
program will be available. And he says the issue
creates a real risk of confrontation with Russia at a
critical time in its political development:
/// ISSACS ACTUALITY ///
If the United States proceeds with National
Missile Defense without a prior agreement with
Russia on arms control and the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, I think we risk a crisis with
Russia, as well as China, as well as with our
NATO allies. It would be one more example,
following the defeat of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty last fall, of the United States going
alone, regardless of the feelings or the
interests of a lot of other countries. So I
think it would be a foreign policy disaster if
we went ahead at this point, particularly
without prior agreement with the Russians.
/// END ACT ///
Mr. Isaacs says an N-M-D decision should be left to
the next administration and after more of the planned
19 tests of the system are conducted and analyzed. He
says the threat of rogue missile attack is
"exaggerated," and that deploying a faulty system that
is not going to work would be - as he put it - "worse
than futile" and a waste of money. (Signed)
NEB/DAG/TVM
19-Jan-2000 17:42 PM EDT (19-Jan-2000 2242 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
