|
Office of Research
Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Africa Western Hemisphere |
| -2 February, 2001
NMD Again 'Hogging Headlines' As World 'Faces Up to U.S. Missile Plan'' |
fter a lull following former President Clinton's September 2000 deferral decision, President Bush's electoral victory stirred renewed controversy in overseas media over U.S. national missile defense (NMD) plans. Indeed, foreign media seized on the Bush team's advocacy of NMD as the most telling and worrisome example of a trend toward U.S. "unilateralism." Moscow's official Rossiyskaya Gazeta typified this view, arguing that despite Russia and China being "dead set against NMD" and despite doubts raised by the U.S.' European allies, Mr. Bush has not spoken of "the need to work further to dispel doubts among the allies in NATO and to try to persuade Russia and China. No, he just wants America to 'take the world to greater security'...its own way, at its own discretion." Highlights follow:
CRITICISM RENEWED: The vast majority of commentators from Europe, East and South Asia, Canada and Latin America reiterated their misgivings about NMD, with the latest criticism consistent with earlier objections. As London's centrist Independent put it: "The case against it is simple: It is expensive, it is unproven, it will destabilize arms control efforts, and it does not even meet the most likely threat scenarios from rogue nuclear states." The Western and Japanese press were particularly concerned about the Russian and Chinese reaction to NMD, worrying that the U.S. defensive shield could "trigger a new arms race."
A MODICUM OF SUPPORT: A smaller segment of writers--most vocally in conservative and independent British papers, an Israeli daily and the conservative Canadian press--stressed that "outsiders cannot demand" that the U.S. forego its "right to such protection" as afforded by NMD. Some further scoffed at U.S. allies' conditioning their approval on Russian and Chinese acquiescence. Ottawa's conservative National Post, e.g., protested its government's "letting Moscow or Beijing do the hard thinking for us," and instead argued that Canada should "support the system."
FACING A FAIT ACCOMPLI: While NMD criticism registered high, it was increasingly accompanied by a sense, from critics and supporters alike, that the Bush administration is determined to proceed with NMD deployment despite overseas reservations. Given such a fait accompli, some media--particularly in countries allied with the U.S., including Britain, Germany, Denmark, Australia, South Korea and Canada--shifted the spotlight somewhat from Washington to their own capitals, noting that their governments "face awkward decisions" on whether to bless or resist the U.S.' NMD plans. As a prominent German commentator stated, "The key question for Europeans is as simple as it is brutal: Do we want to join Russia and China in order to put up a united front against the U.S. on NMD?" Even a few Russian papers, albeit in the minority, saw NMD as a done deal and urged the Kremlin to push for "compromise solutions" with the U.S. The Chinese/Hong Kong press, by contrast, remained unwavering in its denunciation of NMD as a threat to the "global strategic balance."
EDITOR: Katherine L. Starr
******************************************************************* *****************
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 74 reports from 30 countries, December 15, 2000-February 1, 2001. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
BRITAIN: "A Big Policy Needs A Sure Foot"
The independent Economist observed (1/20): "The doubts about Mr. Bush's plan to build an anti-missile shield have more to do with feasibility and timing than with principle. If America can build an effective shield against rogue states, it will do so. Outsiders cannot demand that a country give up a method of protecting itself--particularly if it offers them the same protection, as Mr. Bush says he will. On the other hand, the technology plainly is not ready.... And there are also diplomatic reasons for caution: pressing ahead precipituously would throw away a potential deal with Russia to change the [ABM] Treaty...and might provoke China into sharply increasing its own long-range missile force. A big policy needs a sure foot."
"Facing Up To U.S. Missile Plan"
According to the independent Financial Times (1/15): "Outside America, there are very few enthusiastic advocates for the so-called [NMD] system--the idea of protecting the United States with a son-of-star wars anti-ballistic missile shield.... There can be no doubting, however, the determination of the new U.S. administration...to press ahead with development of NMD. The world is going to have to come to terms with the idea.... But those such as William Hague, the Conservative opposition leader, who would back NMD without an apparent doubt, are being premature and opportunistic."
"Why Not Shelter Beneath America's Defense Umbrella?"
The centrist Independent featured this piece (1/15): "The [NMD] debate has shown the Blair government at its abject worse. NMD is a tricky subject.... Since Friday, when William Hague made a thoughtful speech on NMD, ministers have been stumbling around in a moral and intellectual vacuum.... Yet NMD is not that complex and issue, nor is it a new one.... The Bush administration understands the need to include the Russians in a new global system of collective security. It will not be easy to overcome Moscow's suspicions. But when Bush assures Putin that this is not an anti-Russian policy, but an anti-rogue state one, the new president will be telling the truth. He will also be inviting the Russians to cooperate in enhancing their protection.... Fortunately for us, the Americans could only protect themselves by protecting us.... But we would still have a moral duty to contribute to our own defense. NMD would not eliminate the threat of mass destruction...but it would remove the threat of ballistic missiles fired by rogue states, so it would make the world a safer place.... The Americans may receive little gratitude for NMD, but yet again, they will be making a large and disinterested financial sacrifice in the cause of world peace. Yes, it's a fine strong boy--the son of Star Wars: We need to face up to the fact that the Bush administration wants this."
"Blair Must Tell Bush His Star Wars Is Folly"
An editorial in the centrist Independent read (1/13): "The case against it [NMD] is simple: It is expensive, it is unproven, it will destabilize arms control efforts, and it does not even meet the most likely threats from rogue nuclear states, chief among them the 'bomb-in-a-suitcase' scenario.... William Hague's decision to support Star Wars II is unwise.... He has certainly spotted an opportunity, because of the government's vacillation over whether to support Star Wars II smacks of trying to have it both ways. Tony Blair and...Geoff Hoon, know that [NMD] is a bad idea, but want to be diplomatic towards the new administration in Washington. Hague's move should prompt the prime minster to come off the fence and tell Bush that Britain does not support the plan.... There is no point in Blair pretending that Britain enjoys a special relationship with the United States if he is not prepared, in a firm but friendly way, to tell Bush that he is about to make an expensive mistake."
"A Special Relationship Under Fire From Missile Defense"
The liberal Guardian had this op-ed essay by political columnist Hugo Young (12/21): "What George Bush proposes and Colin Powell disposes, Tony Blair may decide he cannot oppose. Not far over the horizon, the ground is opening up for the most awkward struggle in the modern history of Anglo-American relations.... Under Clinton, British and European objections to NMD fed into an administration inclined to take them seriously.... Whitehall, like Paris and Berlin...now face a Washington being peopled by voices that make a different analysis: scornful of Russia, arrogant about China, intolerant of European insensitivities, overwhelmingly impressed by the case for defending U.S. territory.... Maybe NMD, if the Americans can produce one that works, is just what we need. Maybe the big picture says that it's Blair's duty to rise above conventional wisdom. If this became Blair's formal position, it would create his deepest rupture with continental Europe. A moment of truth almost certainly beckons. Will NMD become a pretext that requires one more affirmation of the old special relationship?"
FRANCE: "Europe And NATO, Same Goals"
Volker Ruhe and Francois Leotard, former German and French defense ministers, opined in right-of-center Le Figaro (1/31): "It would also be useful if the EU considered the Bush proposal for a common anti-missile shield, while adding its own constructive input to it."
"Anti-Missile Shield: Panacea Or Disorder?"
Jacques Isnard held in left-of-center Le Monde (1/31): "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld...[has] his back is against the wall. He is going to have to explain to skeptical worldwide public opinion why Washington will go ahead with [NMD], possibly on its own, without considering the consequences of its strategic choices, which leave its allies perplexed.... What will happen if President Bush agrees to such a program? Will it be a panacea or a new strategic disorder?... It is clear that it would trigger the wildest arms race and a competition without bounds."
"Why An American Anti-Missile Shield?"
Francois Gere, Scientific Director of the Foundation for Strategic Studies, addressed an editorial to President Bush in left-of-center Liberation (1/5): "Mr. President, with the nomination of Donald Rumsfeld...you have sent a strong message to the American people and the rest of the world.... No one truly understands the motivation behind the U.S. position [on NMD].... The real deep and long-term concerns are based on the fear that the strategic order will be upset, putting in question nuclear deterrence.... No one contests the United States' right for to protect itself, [but] there are other better ways to do it. No one understands the urgency for the most powerful nation to deploy an inefficient system in these times of peace. NMD uselessly sends a provocative signal, threatening to destabilize the present strategic order."
GERMANY: "Rockets And Reflexes"
Josef Joffe front-paged this article in Hamburg's left-of-center weekly Die Zeit (2/1): "The key question for Europeans is as simple as it is brutal: Do they want to join Russia and China in order to put up a united front against the United States on NMD? Such a move...would not be good for the health of 50-year-old Alliance. Moreover, Europe's strategic position has changed since the end of the Cold War.... Germany and Italy are cooperating with the United States in order to develop a regional missile defense; France and Britain are working on a similar project. To put it simply, we, too, have a strategic problem, and it has been recognized. Whoever wants to oppose the Slobos and Saddams of this world must be able to protect himself against their missiles. And whoever counts on the United States to participate in such efforts, cannot deny the country's right to such protection. The first task of European diplomacy must be to convince the U.S. president that NMD will not take place in a vacuum, cut loose from the pull of political gravity. The president can discuss the gigantic costs of the project with Congress. The political costs, however, are everyone's problem--especially for a United States which wants to be the only world power, but not a solitary one. On the other hand, Europe should not willingly sit in the same anti-American boat with China and Russia. There is plenty of room for creative diplomacy between these two poles. Europe and the United States share at least one interest: protection against long-range weapons of mass destruction. The same is true of Russia, by the way. Instead of backing Putin, Europe should encourage the Russian president to check U.S. offers of cooperation carefully instead of brushing them aside. And the message for Bush is this: NMD should strengthen the Alliance, not split it."
"Sharing Missile Defense"
Volker Ruehe, head of the CDU/CSU group in the German parliament, and Francois Leotard, a former French defense official, judged in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/31): "Europeans need to entertain constructively the new U.S. administration's offer to build a shared missile defense, and they need to enhance such a project with initiatives of their own."
"Moscow Softening With Respect To NMD"
Andrzej Rybak and Hubert Wetzel observed in business Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg (1/30): "Moscow is of course trying to capitalize on the NMD disagreement. The Kremlin would like NATO to give up on a second round of expansion, which might include the Baltic states.... Thus, Russian experts are not excluding the possibility of a deal: Russia accepts changes in the ABM Treaty, and, in return, NATO does not extend membership to the Baltic states. Another kind of deal might be possible in connection with further disarmament treaties. Germany has been uncertain about how to react, torn between the desire to maintain good U.S.-German relations and the fear that NMD could divide NATO and trigger a new arms race."
"Lonely Blockade"
Oliver Maier, a member of the Verification Research, Training and Information Center in London, commented in left-of-center Die Tageszeitung of Berlin (1/30): "The United States is the only NATO member which has not ratified CTBT. The United States is running the risk of increasing international isolation on this issue. CTBT is in Bush's interest. With the help of the treaty, he could calm down NMD opponents and the European Allies..... If the United States decides to reject CTBT and stick to its NMD plans, it would amount to a policy of blockade in the international realm. The Europeans need to clarify that a U.S. withdrawal from multilateral arms control would be disastrous.... If Bush really rejects important arms control projects, Europe should be prepared to take up the slack."
"Ally Bush"
Leo Wieland front-paged this editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/20): "To be taken seriously, the [United States'] allies will have to avoid rejecting out of hand U.S. worries concerning the threat posed by nuclear, biological and chemical weapons."
"Destabilizing"
Jochen Siemens judged in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (1/16): "In addition to the technical problems...the new U.S. government is faced with two great diplomatic challenges [with regard to NMD]: On the one hand, it must promise participation to its Alliance partners and, on the other, it must prevent the whole disarmament process with Russia from falling apart. An agreement regarding the first problem is in the offing.... But the inclusion of Europe in such a system does not change the destabilizing effect for future relations with Russia and China. It is clear that the issue will lead to tensions in [Germany's] coalition government, but NATO will also face serious times."
"Ice Age In Spring"
Stefan Kornelius commented in an editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (1/11): "Bush is pursuing two goals with respect to defense and security policy: He wants to strengthen the U.S. military, and he wants to protect the country against a missile attack. Both goals are putting Europeans in a bind, because an even stronger U.S. military would deepen the rift between NATO partners. In this way, the pressure on Europeans to do more for their own defense is building. A decision in favor of NMD could trigger a chain reaction at the end of which the global security structure could suffer from increasing tensions and disagreements."
"Ghostly Silence In Europe"
Roland Heine observed in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (12/28): "In light of the destructive consequences of NMD not only for the ABM Treaty, but also for the entire international arms control system, the public silence of European politicians in this matter is spooky. It is misleading to hope that the consequences of NMD would not be overly dramatic for Europe. After all, NMD represents not only the United States' desire for invulnerability, but also its desire to act according to its own premises on a global scale.... It is high time for coordinated European action, especially since two EU states are directly involved in Washington's NMD plans: Great Britain and Denmark. Both in British Fylingdales and in Danish Greenland, U.S. bases are supposed to serve as NMD radar stations."
ITALY: "Bush Chooses Rumsfeld As Pentagon Chief"
Marco Valsania filed from New York in leading, business Il Sole-24 Ore (12/29): "Sixty-eight-year-old Donald Rumsfeld will be the new Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld already served in that position during the Ford administration in the mid '70s. George W. Bush made up his mind about this very important appointment, and his choice, once again, put a premium on experience.... The strategy of the Bush team, so far, seems aimed at strengthening military spending, with preliminary steps towards the creation of the 'space shield.' International commitments, however, may include a revision of the American role abroad. Rumsfeld promised he would give priority to the missile defense system, in addition to the fight against terrorism.... Overall, observers got the impression that Bush wants to surround himself with collaborators who enjoy a solid reputation."
RUSSIA: "Interim Accords Needed"
Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta published this article by Yevgeny Maslin, Ivan Safronchuk and Yevgeny Silin (2/1): "U.S. plans to deploy NMD may have serious consequences for arms control, unless backed by an agreement with Russia on amendments necessary to maintain the ABM Treaty.... Russia's main concern is that NMD deployment may become a prelude to building a much more powerful system that will upset the current strategic stability. The United States should remove that concern via coordinated practical measures. A basis for a compromise with Russia is to retain the current logic of strategic stability, to keep up the nuclear balance, and to continue nuclear disarmament. So the chief aim of the compromise is to make sure that the nuclear equilibrium between Russia and the United States does not change. What we need now is interim accords which, while not encroaching on the interests of either side, will help break the 'nuclear stalemate.'"
"Differing Statements"
Sergei Merinov said in official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (1/30): "Moscow and Washington have, within hours of each other, made statements on arms control and strategic stability. They are quite different.... Vladimir Putin told Russian diplomats about the complicated and delicate work they had to do for the ABM Treaty to remain in force. Russia and China are dead set against NMD, and the Americans' allies in Europe, let alone other respected members of the international community, have serious doubts about it, too. George Bush, talking to a group of U.S. senators, did not speak of the need to work further to dispel doubts among the allies in NATO and to try to persuade Russia and China. No, he just wants America to 'take the world to greater security' as far as nuclear arms are concerned, doing this its own way, at its own discretion."
"21st Century's First Major Test"
Yevgeny Bai filed from Washington for reformist Izvestiya (1/30): "The new U.S. leader has confirmed his election promise to start to deploy a missile defense system. The issue of ABM, causing convulsions in the United States' relations with Russia, China and even with its allies, has become the world's first major test in the new century.... The Bush team, so it seems, is not going to heed Moscow's opinion. As he came to power, Bush stated that America was ready to cut its arsenal unilaterally almost to the minimum. He says that the Russians should understand that and give up the ABM Treaty."
"It's Wise To Use Differences"
Vasily Safronchuk advised in nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (1/30): "Of course, we should not overstate differences on ABM in the new U.S. administration--they only reflect the approaches of different groups inside the U.S. military industrial complex. Yet it would be wrong not to use those differences. It is necessary also to make the most of the fact that China and the United States' allies in Europe are opposed to NMD."
"Hard Talks Ahead"
Sergei Rogov, director of the United States and Canada Institute, wrote in reformist weekly VEK (1/26): "We are in for very hard talks on the whole range of strategic arms. Doubtless, the Americans will try to augment their advantage. Compromise solutions would make it possible for Russia to protect its security interests, especially if Bush should honor its election promise to cut nuclear arms. Disregard for Russia's interests and trying to isolate it would have serious geopolitical consequences. Attempts at diktat would cause Russia, China and other countries to retaliate. Conversely, treating Russia as an important partner in maintaining international security and stability would create prospects for an optimistic scenario."
"Keep An Open Mind"
Oleg Odnokolenko said on page one of reformist Segodnya (1/17): "There is still a chance to come to terms with the United States, according to Russian politicians. For many years Moscow has insisted that it is impossible to build a 100 percent reliable ABM system. If so, why object to a reasonably modified 1972 treaty? There is no way we can make America change its mind. General Aleksandr Piskunov, who has participated in practically all nuclear arms talks with the United States over the past decade, says that ABM can effectively intercept only individual missiles, so it can't upset strategic stability. So there is no reason for us to fear America's NMD."
"Russia May Find an Ally in France"
Boris Volkhonsky pointed out in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (1/17): "With its particular stand in NATO, France can become Russia's natural ally. The Americans' allies in NATO have been seriously concerned over NMD."
"Bush And ABM"
Stanislav Kodrashov, a veteran of Soviet and Russian journalism, wrote in reformist Vremya-MN (12/22): "The most intriguing issue in U.S.-Russian relations is whether Bush Jr. will take up the relay which Reagan rejected in the dialogue with Gorbachev. The creation of an American anti-missile umbrella in violation of the 1972 ABM Treaty would amount to a castration of the Russian nuclear potential, thus removing the chief external obstacle to U.S. dominance in the world."
AUSTRIA: "Bone Of Contention"
Burkhard Bischof opined in conservative Die Presse (1/17): "Bush does not leave any doubts about his plans to develop the internationally controversial, technically difficult and extremely costly missile defense system. This project will undoubtedly become the biggest bone of contention of his first years in office. A new Cold War? Certainly not, but the global political climate will become harsher."
BELGIUM: "Stirring Agitation In Denmark"
Denmark correspondent Dirk Evers observed in independent Catholic De Standaard (1/26): "A letter from George Bush to Greenland's Prime Minister Jonathan Motzfeldt caused agitation in Denmark yesterday.... If America carries out its NMD system, the Thule radar installations will have to be strengthened. That requires the approval of the host country. Bush's letter gives the impression that he views Greenland, not Denmark, as the host country--and that is what the stir is about."
BULGARIA: "The U.S. Reanimates A Dangerous Political Philosophy"
Socialist Party Duma held (1/ 31): "Only ten days since the new Republican administration entered the White House and Europe has started feeling the palpably cool winds from the shadow of the American missile defense umbrella.... The U.S. intention to create an NMD system and render meaningless the [ABM] treaty...is not merely a veiled threat to destabilize the very base of international relations in the area of disarmament. It also sends an alarming message about the reanimation of an arrogant, selfish, unpredictable political philosophy, characteristic of the darkest years of the global political and military race in the last century."
DENMARK: "Bush On NMD Offensive"
Center-left Politiken carried the following analysis (2/1): "Cheney has thrown fuel on the fire [of the NMD debate]. According to Cheney, the United States has the right to ignore the 'obsolete' ABM Treaty if Russia does not agree to revise it...but leading Russian security experts say that this will force Russia to rearm."
"Five Small Words"
Center-left Politiken commented (1/25): "'Like you, I look forward to cooperating on issues of common interest, such as Thule,' the new U.S. president wrote in a letter to the Chairman of the Greenlandic Home Rule Government.... Those words threw the Danish media into a panic yesterday, which viewed them as an indication that the United States was accelerating its NMD plans. The issue can be interpreted as media scoop, or as an indication that the United States is trying to break down Greenlandic opposition to NMD by flattery..... [Nonetheless] the [NMD] issue [as a whole] is a serious one, and it looks likely to become one of the hottest political issues in many years.... Bush is a strong NMD advocate, but [if implemented] the system could unleash a new arms race and increase tension between NATO allies and...Russia and China."
"The Battle For Thule"
Center-right Jyllands-Posten asserted (1/25): "In Bush's reply, he echoed Motzfeldt's expression of the hope that the two countries could work together on areas of common interest.... It is well known that NMD is a central theme in Bush's political program and...that the Thule upgrade is an important factor in this. This means that Greenland and Denmark have been thrust into the limelight--a position that does not suit the conflict-shy Danish SDP-Radical government very well.... The government and parliament must keep a cool head over the issue and remember that the government handles foreign policy issues affecting the [Danish] commonwealth."
"NMD Deployment, Balkan Troop Withdrawal Portend Political Problems"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende's foreign editor opined (12/31): "If an agreement can be reached between the U.S. and Russia regarding the ABM Treaty...a conflict between [the government] and the Danish left-wing [over Denmark's position on the issue] will be avoided. But with the passing of time, U.S. plans to implement NMD as well as make troop withdrawals in the Balkans, look increasingly likely--two issues that could create political problems for Denmark."
FINLAND: "Bush's Skills To Be Tested Soon"
Leading, independent Helsingin Sanomat's editorial read (1/23): "The outside world will have to prepare for a growing emphasis on NMD. It is likely to be implemented in one form or another. In other issues, as well, Washington may be more reluctant to listen to the advice from its allies."
IRELAND: "NMD And Trade Troubles"
The moderately conservative Irish Times opined on Bush's NMD plans (1/22): "His critics at home and abroad believe [NMD] could trigger a new arms race. Coming on top of difficult trade disputes, this should make transatlantic relations an immediate priority for the new president and his foreign policy team."
NETHERLANDS: "Bush Arrives"
Centrist Haagsche Courant's editorial declared (1/20): "Bush seems to be making the same mistakes as Reagan: tax reductions and more money for defense, to, among other items, chase the utopia of a missile shield."
NORWAY: "Hiding Behind Missile Defense"
Social democratic Dagsavisen judged (1/20): "The signals from Bush and his people hint at desires for increased isolationism and a belief that the United States can hide behind missile defense. Such a line might in worst case lead to a break with loyal allies, and to U.S. opponents...forming their own new alliances."
SPAIN: "Anti-Missile Shield"
Barcelona's conservative La Vanguardia commented (1/29): "Bush has emphasized...big surprise--the creation of an anti-missile shield. The surprise comes from the fact that, in the first place, the technology is still a long way from perfection and the cost of the shield will be very high. The corresponding political cost is also significant.... It is true that since the end of the Cold War, the danger of nuclear attack has been shifted to countries...like Libya, Iraq or North Korea, but it seems disproportionate to initiate a new arms race for this reason alone. Furthermore, despite the U.S. promise to share the technology with allies and all 'peace-loving' nations, the...ABM Treaty remains in force...and [NMD] will probably derail START ll...[thereby] confirming the worst suspicions about an emerging U.S. neo-isolationism. A unilateral reduction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a goodwill gesture does not compensate for the obstinacy of building a defense system that would upset the current strategic balance."
TURKEY: "Turkey With Bush"
Mass-appeal Hurriyet's Brussels-based columnist Hadi Uluengin wrote (2/1): "There are a couple of issues which may put Turkey and the United States on opposing sides. The 'Star Wars' project is one. If Washington's new leader insists on the project, we will either say 'no,' like the other EU members as well as China and Russia; or we will say 'yes' and experience diplomatic isolation in Europe."
AUSTRALIA: "Facing Awkward Decisions"
The leading Sydney Morning Herald editorialized (12/16): "The speculation is that Mr. Bush's administration will be less ready...to put U.S. troops at risk in overseas peacemaking or peacekeeping operations. This has implications for Australia.... Australia could face awkward decisions too, if Mr. Bush decides to go ahead with the proposed missile defense systems."
CHINA: "Cheney Reiterates America's Support For NMD"
Official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao) featured this comment from the Xinhua news agency (1/30): "Vice President Cheney said on January 28 that the United States, irrespective of China and Russia's opposition, will continue to develop and deploy NMD. International experts on arms control believe that the plan will destroy global strategic balance and stability, and may even trigger a new round of arms racing."
"Bush Obstinately Sticks To NMD Course"
Tang Weibing and Tang Shuifu commented in official Beijing municipal Beijing Daily (Beijing Ribao, 1/28): "President Bush announced on January 26 that he would deploy NMD and unilaterally cut America's nuclear weapons. International arms control experts believe that America's NMD system seriously violates the ABM Treaty and goes against the trend of the time. It is not only unconducive to international arms control and disarmament, but also will severely affect global and regional strategic balances and stability."
"NMD: "A Hot Potato In Bush's Hand"
Wang Ying commented in the official Beijing municipal Beijing Daily (Beijing Ribao, 1/22): "As everybody knows, George W. Bush is new to international diplomacy. But he just wants to make an issue of foreign policy, and, in particular, hopes to achieve a breakthrough on NMD.... Bush has just found out that the NMD system is a genuine hot potato...due to widespread opposition among allies and foes alike."
"U.S. Urged To Axe National Missile Program"
Hu Qihua commented in the official, English-language China Daily (1/17): "Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao said yesterday that plans to deploy the TMD and NMD systems...will have a negative impact on the global and regional strategic balance. Zhu called for continued efforts by the new [U.S.] administration to maintain the continued development of Sino-U.S. relations."
HONG KONG: "A Dangerous Signal"
The Pro-PRC Ta Kung Pao commented (2/1): "By spending billions of dollars on NMD, the United States is not only damaging world peace and stability, it is also taking an action counter to its own interest. The global strategic balance will be upset. A new round of the arms race will be in full swing, triggering nuclear and missile proliferation. The United States will not be safer than it is now.... More discussion and consultation with other countries is the best way to secure peace and security."
"Bush's Bellicose Airs"
The center-left Hong Kong Globe had this editorial (1/30): "President Bush put on bellicose airs immediately after he assumed office. He announced that he would deploy NMD soon. He said he was just fulfilling his campaign promise and that NMD would not be aimed at China or Russia.... The United States is ready to develop TMD too [and] has tried to involve Japan and Taiwan.... Beijing is strongly against this because this move is obviously aimed at China."
"Toward A New Cold War"
Greg Torode wrote in the independent South China Morning Post (1/28): "It is only a week since President George W. Bush got his feet under the desk in the Oval Office and already [NMD] is hogging the headlines. Just yesterday, both Mr. Bush and...Donald Rumsfeld voiced fresh expressions of desire for a shield of radars and interceptor missiles that could protect the United States from attack. There is talk of fresh tensions with China and Russia, both deeply opposed to the scheme, and an end of the [ABM] Treaty.... Yesterday, Mr. Bush stressed both the need for strong defenses and to work with a nervous Russia to cut arsenals."
"Missile Doubts"
The independent South China Morning Post wrote in its editorial (1/15): "There are serious doubts about whether any anti-missile system...can ever work. But there is no doubt at all that beginning construction would give the U.S. grave diplomatic problems worldwide.... If Mr. Bush also decides to supplement a national system by providing theater missile defense technology to South Korea, Japan and perhaps Taiwan--which many Bush supporters favor--then the political problems would grow even more intense, with few obvious offsets. To date, missile defense systems seem to combine great cost and unproven technology to offset unclear threats.... Before it starts to build, the new Bush team needs to explain more persuasively why doing so is necessary."
JAPAN: "Arms Control Talks Remain Idle"
Liberal Asahi opined (1/29): "The Geneva Disarmament Conference...has been idle for more than four years. Discussions have not even started to compose a draft for a 'cut-off' accord that prohibits the production of nuclear fissionable materials.... In spite of all this, both China and Russia are more concerned about the proposed U.S. deployment of a [NMD] system. China maintains that negotiations on the 'cut-off' must be held simultaneously with discussions on a treaty restricting space weapons. The United States is opposed to what it views as Chinese and Russian obstruction of the planned NMD deployment, delaying 'cut-off' talks. Japan should take the initiative in reactivating arms control talks, particularly in compiling a long-term arms control implementation plan."
"Further U.S.-Russian Nuclear Arms Cuts Called For"
Top-circulation, centrist Yomiuri editorialized (1/25): "Having appointed Rumsfeld...to the top DOD post, the administration might move toward early NMD deployment. The proposed deployment not only remains technologically problematic but also has drawn criticism from Europe as a move to 'rekindle' a nuclear arms race. Under these circumstances, there is no need for the United States to make a 'hasty' decision on NMD deployment. The Bush administration must consider carefully what adverse effect its deployment would have on Russia and China. Instead, Bush should discuss a further reduction in nuclear arms with Russia. Putin proposed last November...that the number of U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear warheads be reduced to less than 1,500 each. We believe that the United States can accept the Russian proposal without putting its, or its allies', security at risk."
"Bush Administration Needs Dialogue And Cooperation With World"
Liberal Asahi editorialized (12/22): "Considering Mr. Bush's repeated support for early NMD deployment, we are concerned about his administration's relations with Russia and China over the issue.... His administration needs to lead the world through close dialogue and cooperation with other countries, without focusing only on U.S. national interests and paying less attention to world stability."
MALAYSIA: "Bush Provoking Arms Race"
Government-influenced, Chinese-language Sin Chew Jit Poh ran the following commentary (1/13): "Rumsfeld has proclaimed...that the United States must go ahead with the [NMD] program. The Bush administration says this is necessary to beef up national security. But it may backfire by pushing all its adversaries to unite to fight American hegemony."
NEW ZEALAND: "Retreat On Defense Benchmarks Would Stir Misgivings"
Wellington's leading, conservative Dominion stated (12/15): "On defense, Mr. Bush is determined to strengthen the missile defense program, even if it means jettisoning the ABM Treaty with Russia. He also opposes the [CTBT]. Any American retreat from those benchmarks would stir international misgivings."
SOUTH KOREA: "Between New Thinking And NMD"
Kim Young-bae observed in an op-ed piece in independent Joong-Ang Ilbo (1/30): "We cannot agree to the U.S. NMD project because it will obviously pique the neighboring four powers and heighten military tensions in Northeast Asia. The government should try its utmost to bridge the gap between the North's new thinking and the U.S. NMD project before the U.S. government makes a conclusive decision and pressures us to support it.... It would be best for the government to persuade North Korea to remove uncertainties surrounding its nuclear and missile program."
"Bush's Worrisome Foreign And Security Policy"
Independent Hankyoreh Shinmun editorialized (1/29): "We re-emphasize that the way of making the world more safe is not to push for the NMD system, as U.S. President Bush claims, but rather to reduce nuclear weapons through negotiations and, in the long run, to abolish them completely. In addition, the shortcut for the United States to raise its authority may be to assist poor countries...using the money set aside to build NMD."
"Launch Of Strong U.S."
Conservative Chosun Ilbo editorialized (1/22): "It is true that not only China and Russia but also the EU are raising doubts about the Bush administration's defense policy, asserting that its push for NMD and TMD programs would trigger another uncontrollable global arms race."
"In the End, It's Up To Us"
Editor-in-chief Chong Yeon-joo noted in independent Hankyoreh Shinmun (12/20): "We cannot afford to lightly overlook the Bush administration's emphasis on 'diplomacy of power' and a 'national missile defense system.' Concerns are being raised that Republican hawks...might turn the ongoing thaw between the North and South back half a century into a Cold War framework."
TAIWAN: "Turning A New Page In Asian Peace"
The liberal/pro-independence, English-language Taiwan News judged (12/18): "We approve of Bush continuing to increase American military strength and developing an effective [TMD] system to ensure that the Taiwan Strait problem is resolved peacefully.... The only factors that scare China besides the rational consideration of its own development is Taiwan's ability to defend itself, and whether America's promise is steadfastly effective."
VIETNAM: "The First Challenges For Bush"
Manh Tuong wrote in Vietnam People's Army Quan Doi Nhan Dan (12/20): "The ambition of the United States has gone beyond limits that even its allies can accept. This NMD issue is really very difficult for Mr. Bush to solve."
INDIA: "An Evolving U.S.-India Equation"
Centrist Hindu had this analysis by Chennai-based senior editor P.S. Suryanarayana (1/12): "George Bush, is not likely to wish away his dream of fabricating a 'Star Wars-style' national missile defense shield.... In seeking to do so, Bush will doubtless scan the entire global arena consisting of legitimate state-players, including India, with nuclear capabilities.... It is logical that a move by Bush to build NMD might provoke Russia and China, and this in turn will set a Beijing-wary India thinking. It is in this sense that New Delhi can figure in Bush's strategic thought-capsule."
"Missile Defense Team"
An editorial in the centrist Times of India argued (12/30): "With President-elect George W. Bush announcing Donald Rumsfeld as his nominee for the post of defense secretary, the national security team of the new Republican administration has taken formidable shape: Two years ago, Rumsfeld headed a high-powered committee which concluded that missile and nuclear proliferation is inevitable.... The significance of the original author of that recommendation becoming the U.S. defense secretary cannot be overstated.... The sum total of all this is that the CTBT is dead.... Now that the Republicans have called a spade a spade, we must take their words seriously instead of dismissing them as rhetoric. New Delhi should have an in-depth assessment of likely U.S. international security policies under the Republican administration so as to develop a flexible Indian response to it."
"Bush, Powell Proclaim 'Uniquely' American Internationalism"
Strategic affairs editor C. Raja Mohan judged in centrist Hindu (12/18): "As a new nuclear weapon power, India will keenly follow the prospects for a radical change in the presumed relationship between offense and defense in the U.S. nuclear strategy. While emphasizing the increased importance of defense-related technologies, Bush has also called for radical, and even unilateral, cuts in the American arsenal. India will have to carefully assess the potential for tectonic shifts in the U.S. nuclear doctrine and adapt its own nuclear security and arms control positions."
PAKISTAN: "Significant Nuclear Events"
Farah Zahra judged in the centrist, national News (1/25): "With Bush coming in, not only will the heat be taken off nonproliferation efforts, but an impetus for further proliferation may be provided via NMD and the Chinese response. Any efforts to preserve doctrines from getting 'harder' or to keep nuclear restraint from going to the winds will have to be indigenous. Indo-Pakistan talks on nuclear risk reduction now need to focus on some technical aspects in order to arrive at prescriptive measures to be put forth to their governments."
ISRAEL: "Ending The Era Of Vulnerability"
The independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (1/30): "Last Friday, Donald Rumsfeld ushered in a new era of American, and therefore global, national security strategy. As far as Israel is concerned, the end of the era of deliberate vulnerability cannot come soon enough.... Finally, someone has come along and said the emperor has no clothes: The security posture of the West should not be made to fit an outdated treaty, but the other way around.... The United States wants the umbrella of missile defenses spread as widely as the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has and will become. For Israel, the urgent need is to proliferate missile defenses in the West at least as fast as missile and WMD technologies are proliferating among rogue states.... Israel should warmly embrace America's decision to end its own vulnerability and to help the Europeans understand the costs to remaining locked into 30-year-old theories of deterrence that are wildly out of touch with today's realities. The alternative is to sit back and watch as Saddam Hussein and his allies drive the prospects for peace further and further away, and our world becomes less secure."
CANADA: "Bush Menu Includes Missiles"
Columnist Harry Sterling commented in the left-of-center Winnipeg Free Press (1/29): "Although Canada's former foreign minister, Lloyd Axworthy, opposed NMD, his replacement, John Manley, has begun reversing course, stating that if Washington can assuage the concerns of Russia and China, Canada probably could go along as well. By no coincidence, U.S. defense officials are already tempting Canada's military with suggestions of sharing surveillance information and contracts from an NMD deployment. Thus, while Chretien may have wanted the upcoming meeting with Bush for politically symbolic reasons, he may have to swallow some NMD before the meal is finished."
"What's Best For Canada"
The conservative National Post asserted (1/29): "When [Foreign Affairs Minister] John Manley went to Washington on Thursday to meet Colin Powell...he suggested that Canadian policy on the proposed [NMD] scheme would depend in large part on the attitudes of Moscow and Beijing.... Instead of letting Moscow or Beijing do the hard thinking for us, Canada should do what is best for Canada."
"Missile Defense Risky"
The liberal Toronto Star opined (1/29): "Canada shouldn't be forced to choose between Washington and our European allies on missile defense.... The technology doesn't work.... The threat from 'rogue' states such as Iran, North Korea and others appears to be receding. So Canadians have reason to be skeptical. But bigger questions loom. Can Russia and China be persuaded to accept missile defenses as harmless? Or will they upgrade and multiply their nuclear forces to be sure that they can 'overwhelm' any U.S. defense? Will NATO partners...go along with Washington? Will Europe be covered by the shield? How would that sit with the Russians and Chinese? How will nuclear mavericks India and Pakistan react if China boosts its arms? Will they too? It's hard not to see an arms race developing."
"Don't Worry, Be Happy"
Columnist Richard Gwyn predicted in the liberal Toronto Star (1/3): "Bush's election makes an American [NMD] system an inevitability. Inevitable, in turn, is a first-class cross-border diplomatic ruckus. Going ahead with the system will breach international treaties and will offend the United States' friends, like the Europeans, as well as its erstwhile enemies like Russia and China. We will be as offended as anyone. But we stand to pay a higher price than almost anyone--in lost defense contracts, in lost diplomatic entrée in Washington--for saying what we think out loud and refusing the U.S. request to join the system. The government will delay saying anything for as long as possible. Eventually, though, it will do what Washington wants."
"So, Where's The Need For Missile Defense?"
Columnist Marcus Gee pointed out in the leading Globe and Mail (12/21): "Before Mr. Bush spends billions of dollars, upsets U.S. allies, alienates Russia and China, and courts an new arms race, he should at least have to show that the United States is facing a real threat. The evidence, so far, is slim."
"Gaffe Avoidance"
The conservative Calgary Sun wrote (12/21): "Rather than being threatening, the NMD seems perfectly sensible. Surely, the United States would be lacking if it didn't do all it could to protect North America from attack.... It's in our interests to support our ally on essential issues that are not detrimental to Canada."
"Poking Holes In A Shield"
The conservative National Post held (12/19): "What interest does Canada have in preventing NMD? Does Ottawa believe that rogue states...will stop if the missile defense is not deployed?... If it is technologically feasible, missile defense will be put in place with or without Canada. Ottawa should support a system that will make Canadians safer."
"Canada Should Just Say No, But It Probably Won't"
Columnist Jeffrey Simpson complained in the leading Globe and Mail (12/20): "Anti-ballistic missile defense is one of those nutty ideas that just won't die.... The incoming Republican administration...is hell-bent on deploying a limited anti-missile system for the United States, and for regions where its military interests, and those of its allies, might be threatened.... The Chrétien government was hoping the idea would go away.... Now they know the Americans will be pressing on, hoping that Canadian participation...will make their selling job easier with other allies and skeptics worldwide."
BRAZIL: "Space As A Theater Of War"
Independent Jornal do Brasil (1/30) ran this comment by Jose Monserrat Filho, Vice President of the Brazilian Society for Aerospace Law and a member of the International Institute for Space Law: "George Bush, installed in the White House, is joined by a band of defense fanatics in favor of a anti-missile defense system.... It's not by accident that the United States is running up against opposition from the EU, Russia, China, India and the majority of trampled-on countries with seats at the UN."
MEXICO: "Bush's Star Wars"
Mireya Olivas wrote in nationalist Milenio (1/29): "President Bush has promised he would go ahead with the nuclear missile defense shield. His envoys have already began to negotiate with China, one of the countries most critical to the project. According to the New York Times, China would not object to the shield were it to be so limited that it would not neutralize China's offensive capability. It would seem that Moscow would follow suit, according to recent statement by Vladimir Putin. If the Chinese and the Russians do not to object to the plan, what should the rest of the world do? We should protest because the program would encourage a new and senseless arms race. Mexico would have to be among those criticizing the program. To stop this race should be a top priority of...President Fox's administration."
##
This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
