DATE=5/30/2000
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=MISSILE DEFENSE-ONE
NUMBER=5-46401
BYLINE=ED WARNER
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:
INTRO: In early June, President Clinton meets Russian
President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, where they will
discuss, among other issues, ballistic missile
defense. Mr. Clinton wants to amend the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits building a
national missile defense system. Mr. Putin wants to
keep the treaty. The issue has also divided U-S
experts, with some critics doubting the system will
work and concerned that it could spark another nuclear
arms race. In the first of a three-part series, V-O-
A's Ed Warner reports on the debate about missile
defense and its role in the summit meeting.
TEXT: Ballistic missile defense is expected to be a
major topic at the upcoming summit between President
Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin. But
analysts say that is all it will be: talk. Perhaps
intense talk, but no resolution of a highly
controversial issue.
Mr. Clinton proposes amending the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty so the United States can deploy a
limited, land-based missile defense for protection
against a few missiles that might be launched some
time in the future by so-called rogue states. In
turn, Mr. Clinton would consider a steep cut in U-S
nuclear weapons.
But Mr. Putin, fearing an upset in the nuclear
balance, is not expected to go along. The summit, say
analysts, will be largely ceremonial with no
significant arms agreement.
Expect the minimum, cautions Joseph Cirincione,
Director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
/// Cirincione Act ///
President Clinton had hoped to strike a grand
bargain at this summit, where the Russians would
agree to amend the A-B-M Treaty, and the United
States in turn would announce a willingness to
go to lower numbers of nuclear weapons. It
appears that any hopes of a grand bargain are
fading fast, and there may not be a possibility
of getting a grand bargain before Clinton leaves
office in the beginning of next year.
/// End Act ///
Domestic U-S politics also stand in the way of a
Moscow agreement, says Barry Blechman, chairman of the
Stimson Center, another Washington policy research
organization:
/// Blechman Act ///
It is hard to understand why the Russians would
see it in their advantage to reach an agreement
with President Clinton on the A-B-M Treaty and
START (EDS: Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)
agreement. They know that whatever they agree
to, he will not be able to get the Congress to
pass. So they would have to talk to the next
administration in any event.
/// End Act ///
A majority of Republicans in the U-S Senate want a
broader missile defense system than Mr. Clinton seeks.
They consider his proposal too limited to be
effective. Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says any agreement
reached in Moscow will be "dead on arrival"
at the Senate.
The debate has also entered the U-S presidential
campaign with the Democratic Party candidate, Vice-
President Albert Gore, attacking his Republican Party
rival, George W. Bush, for urging an extensive missile
defense.
The Clinton administration is not really serious about
the issue, says Jack Spencer, defense and national
security analyst at Washington's Heritage Foundation,
a research group that generally supports Republican
Party views:
/// Spencer Act ///
The ground-based system in Alaska that the
administration is supporting will not be
sufficient. Instead of just that, we need to
deploy a layered system, including ground and
sea-based and eventually space-based missile
defense. We need to have a study to figure out
what is the best way to defend America, not the
best way to defend America from missiles within
the A-B-M Treaty, and that is what I see this
land-based system as.
/// End Act ///
Mr. Spencer's position is supported by a new U-S
Defense Department report calling for a sea-based
missile defense that can be built with existing
technology and would offer greater flexibility at less
cost.
Republicans are sincere but misguided, says Kurt
Gottfried, chairman of the Union of Concerned
Scientists and professor of physics at Cornell
University. He says those who favor a far-ranging
missile defense are willing to undermine current
restraints on nuclear weapons:
/// Gottfried Act ///
There are people in the Senate who want to
destroy the A-B-M Treaty because they feel it is
not in the nation's interest to be constrained
by it or by other arms control agreements. We
are, after all, today without question the most
powerful country in the world. And they feel
there is no reason why we should be operating
under constraints since we can do what we want,
more or less.
/// End Act ///
But the rest of the world does not go along with this
presumption, notes Robert Kagan, a senior associate at
Carnegie Endowment, who favors a broad missile
defense:
/// Kagan act ///
Right now, Russia is actually standing with most
of the other countries of the world against a
missile defense system. Many European countries
are opposed to the American plan. China is
certainly opposed to the American plan. And
President Putin has made himself look like the
great defender of arms control against the
United States, which wants to break out of the
A-B-M Treaty.
/// End Act ///
Mr. Kagan says the stage is set for a considerable
debate over missile defense at the presidential
meeting in Moscow. (signed)
NEB/EW/JP
30-May-2000 13:23 PM EDT (30-May-2000 1723 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
