|
Office of Research
Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Africa Western Hemisphere |
| 8 May 2001
Missile Defense: Reaction To Bush Speech |
President Bush's May 1st speech outlining his intention to pursue a U.S. missile defense (MD) system put the issue back in headlines overseas. Skepticism about the plan's feasibility and its effect on arms control--and especially the ABM Treaty--continued to run high in segments of the European/Canadian press, conservative commentators excepted. European papers joined Russian media, however, in welcoming U.S. consultations. While China stood increasingly isolated in its categorical denunciations, elsewhere in East/South Asia reaction was mixed. Highlights follow:
NATO-EUROPE/CANADA: Some Urge Caution, All Welcome Consultations
Left-leaning/independent papers in Britain, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway and Spain urged caution: MD should not "undermine traditional ways of dealing with threats," i.e., arms control, and the U.S. must "not abrogate ABM unilaterally."
Conservative papers in Britain, Germany, Denmark, and Canada endorsed Bush's MD rationale as forward-thinking and advised their governments to "be ready to enter into a genuine security partnership" in a system that will "offer protection" to them as well.
RUSSIA: Moscow Pundits Stress U.S. Willingness To Consult With Kremlin
Moscow media across the political spectrum--official, reformist, centrist, even some nationalist--put a positive spin on the speech and on official Moscow's "restrained" reaction. Official Rossiyskaya Gazeta emphasized, "Bush does not intend to take one-sided steps...and will consult." Reformist Izvestiya saw the Kremlin's receptivity to dialogue as "putting a brave face on a sorry business." Moscow's task now, concluded reformist Vremya Novostei, is to "get [the U.S.] to make as many concessions as possible."
EAST ASIA: Beijing's "Shrill Opposition"; Seoul Worried; Aussies, Kiwis Split
China's state-run media revived prior criticism, as typified by China Daily's claim that MD is an "ultra self-centered" U.S. attempt "to seek military supremacy and global hegemony."
Seoul dailies bluntly stated their "clear-cut opposition," worrying that it will "bring new tension and conflict to Northeast Asia."
Australia and New Zealand media were split. The liberal Melbourne Age saw "no good national interest in Australia being involved in this scheme;" conservative papers offered "qualified support," stressing that Canberra must be "sensitive to both the U.S. and China."
SOUTH ASIA: Indian Press Debates New Delhi's Response
Some prominent editors and pro-government dailies hailed "India's pragmatic reaction." One declared, "As an outcaste of the old nuclear order, India has every reason to...welcome the construction of a more credible global nuclear arrangement."
Editorials in the nationalist Hindustan Times and centrist Times of India questioned their government's "strangely submissive attitude" and "irrational exuberance."
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 86 reports from 42 countries, May 2-8. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
EDITOR: Katherine L. Starr
BRITAIN: "Bush's Nuclear Plan"
The independent weekly Economist observed (5/5): "More than a decade after the Cold War ended, America is right to take a radical look at how security and stability can best be ensured in a very different world. There is no point, for example, in clinging nostalgically to the ABM Treaty...if clinging to it in this form stops America--and Russia...from dealing with new missile threats.... Similarly, why preserve an arms-cutting process that has cut not a singly extra bomber or missile for a decade? But in being radical it is also important to be right.... [Bush's] new plans need to be judged by the same practical, non-ideological standard as past arms control agreements: Do they produce greater stability and security?... Will such defenses work?... Even if new defenses can be made to work, America still has good reason to proceed with caution. Not least since technology seldom works flawlessly and there are plenty of other ways of delivering a...bomb, any future defenses have to work in ways that strengthen deterrence and diplomacy--traditional ways of dealing with threats to peace--not undermine them. Hence the need to try and replace the ABM Treaty's outdated elements with new understandings that Russia and others can live with.... It is possible that America and Russia can strike a new and reassuring bargain that avoids a destablizing row.... But the diplomacy, as well as the technology, must be got right."
"Lasers On The Lawn"
The conservative Times held (5/3): "Would missile defense prompt a new arms race? No. The aim is to make nuclear, chemical and biological weapons less valuable as a threat.... Bush did not announce the unilateral American end of the 1972 [ABM] Treaty.... But he directly appealed to Russia to leave behind the constraints of an ABM Treaty that perpetuates mutual vulnerability.... Putin and his chiefs of staff would be wise to mark Mr. Bush's words closely.... Russia is to be offered American temptations that it will find difficult to resist. This is bold, and politically astute. If Washington makes Moscow, rather than its European Allies in NATO, its main port of call, that halts plans that Russia, or indeed France, might have had to develop a 'European' blocking position. Russia could play the China card...but that is hardly in its best strategic interest; China is part of the missile proliferation problem, not its solution.... Britons too should see Bush's challenge to think forward, not back, in a context wider than missile defense.... No nation that is serious about defending itself, or projecting power, or even being in the forefront of science, can afford not to be part of it."
"Mr. Bush's Plan For Peace"
The independent Financial Times editorialized (5/3): "[Bush] is right that the ABM Treaty is no longer as relevant as it was. But if it is to be replaced, and with it the entire fragile structure of international security, it is essential that this be done through multilateral agreement. The United States should not abrogate the ABM Treaty unilaterally. The U.S. president set out on the right path by consulting his Allies, and Vladimir Putin before making his speech.... To be effective, any new security framework must involve China. Mr. Bush admits that missile defenses alone cannot provide global security. For a start, the technology remains entirely unproven.... It could provide a spurious sense of national security, while liable to be subverted by any attacker capable of thinking laterally or putting a nuclear bomb in a suitcase.... Bush has made a positive offer by suggesting that the United States will reduce its own existing nuclear arsenal, and do so unilaterally if necessary.... The fact is Bush is determined to press ahead. So it is vital that the U.S. administration should take the potential negative consequences into account."
"Bush On Target"
An editorial in the conservative Daily Telegraph read (5/2): "Bush left no one in any doubt yesterday about his determination to push ahead with an ambitious missile defense system.... NATO should be reassured that the new system, unlike that proposed by Mr. Clinton, will offer protection to Europe as well as to America itself. If doubts over its practicality can be put at rest, no responsible European government will be in a position lightly to pass up the offer of future protection against the likes of Libya and Iraq.... Mr. Putin's reaction to the American plans seems to have been studiously non-committal, while Britain's support, albeit grudging, was already assured. But the conciliatory reaction from both France and Germany shows that all America's main allies now realize that Mr. Bush will not be deflected from missile defense, by friend or foe. Yesterday the iron fist was certainly on display, but so too was the velvet glove."
"Mr. Bush's Defense Plans Are Dangerous And Misguided"
The centrist Independent said in its editorial (5/2): "As with his abandonment of the Kyoto treaty, Bush seemed ready yesterday to ignore the concerns of the rest of the world with his proposals for a nuclear missile shield.... His enthusiasm for [NMD] makes little sense in objective terms. The technology is severely flawed.... The proposed NMD will ride roughshod over the [ABM] Treaty.... Admittedly, the end of the Cold War means that agreements struck [then]...may no longer seem appropriate in the 21st century. Nonetheless, Bush's readiness to tear up international treaties without so much as a by-your-leave creates a distinctly sour taste.... This high handedness can have disastrous knock-on effects--countries like India and Pakistan...will be emboldened to go their own way.... America cannot behave as though it were the only country in the world.... The reaction from Downing Street has been supine, talking of 'sympathy' for the American proposals. An act of foolishness should, however, publicly be identified as such. Failure to speak out is potentially dangerous for all."
"Indefensible Missiles"
The liberal Guardian averred (5/2): "Bush's decision to develop highly versatile, 'multilayered' space, land, air and sea missile defenses is an historic mistake that will have dangerously negative repercussions worldwide.... This grandiose scheme will demolish the foundation of the strategic nuclear balance, the 1972 [ABM] Treaty.... By deploying these new systems alongside its reduced but still superior offensive missile forces, the United States will be well on the way to establishing a domineering, deeply threatening, global military posture.... Not only Russia but China and others such as India will feel obliged to respond in kind.... As we have remarked before, Mr. Bush is becoming a menace. Tony Blair should stop being 'sympathetic to his concerns' and tell him that Britain...will have no truck with his madcap missiles."
FRANCE: "Not The Best Of All Possible Worlds"
Bernard Guetta told listeners on government-funded France Inter radio (5/2): "This time, President Bush did things correctly, when he called personally Putin, Blair, Schroeder, Chirac, Chretien and Robertson...and promised the arrival of an envoy to explain and collect advice and suggestions, thus avoiding a wave of criticism similar to the reactions that followed his decision on the Kyoto Protocol.... While all of his arguments in favor of the shield can be defended...the fact remains that his policy is also a sure way to launch a new arms race and to open a new era of instability.... It is indeed a strange world that is taking shape, without a true leader, and no well-defined sides. But with a well-protected island in the middle, able to annihilate its enemies and so well protected that it would inevitably shut itself off, far from the world's ills, reigning without governing. Not the best of all possible worlds."
"In Europe, Anti-NMD Clan Is Resigned"
Arnaud de La Grange observed in right-of-center Le Figaro (5/2): "Useless and dangerous. This was the opinion of certain European countries on the American antimissile shield not too long ago. A justified position considering that there is no real threat.... But lately, with the arrival of the new administration, resignation has begun to set in. This was the approach adopted by Hubert Vedrine, when he said that the important thing was 'that consultations were underway.'... In Washington, this French appeasement was well received.... If France has relented somewhat, it is because its European allies were not sold on a long-winded fight against Washington on strategy issues."
"Bush Wants To Deploy His Shield"
Pascal Riche noted in left-of-center Liberation (5/2): "In his speech, President Bush took care not to announce anything definitive: no calendar, no budget, no details.... He simply spoke about a philosophy.... His shield will protect not only the United States but also 'its allies.'... The program, which was called NMD, has recently dropped the N. It remains a distant and imprecise program.... Nothing is very concrete, except the diplomatic difficulties ahead."
GERMANY: "Putin's Gratefulness"
Center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine observed (5/5): "The U.S. president was right to inform Putin as well as the most important allies about his speech on MD. In this manner, the United States indicated that it views Moscow as a strategic partner whose interests and views will be taken into consideration.... At least, the two sides agree on the fact that new threats exist which the old mechanisms cannot handle. In addition, both sides seem to remember that even during the Cold War a high degree of cooperation and communication was necessary in order to create security and stability. These are truly not bad conditions for a dialogue on MD."
"No Reason For Panic"
Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger noted in a front-page editorial in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (5/3): "If President Bush means what he says and does what he promises, there is no reason to ring alarm bells. Washington aims to link the establishment of a missile defense system to wide-ranging reductions of first-strike nuclear arsenals.... Russia can rest easy. Bush's offer to work with Moscow in creating a framework to overcome old Cold War attitudes and address future security issues should allay Russian concerns. Washington's allies should also accept that Bush's promise of consultation is more than just soothing words. His predecessor Clinton, in contrast, gave information about defense plans unwillingly and late in the day. America's allies have a right to be informed and to voice their views. But they must then be ready to enter into a genuine security partnership without retreating into strategic escapism."
"The Importance Of Treaties"
Center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich judged (5/3): "The only remarkable aspect of Bush's speech is this: The president is showing little trust in the power of treaties. Whoever declares an arms control treaty obsolete, even if it may be a weak treaty, should make a suggestion about how he plans to prevent uncontrolled armament and verify disarmament. Whoever reduces the number of nuclear warheads should do so in consultation with others and within a set framework--otherwise the balance of deterrence in the world will be lost."
"The Announcement As An Instrument Of Power"
We Schmidt commented in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (5/3): "Unless one belongs to the rogues of this world, what could one possibly say against Bush's plans, which even include unilateral reduction of the U.S.' nuclear arsenal?... Maybe this: Bush's plans are still speculation and have real political consequences long before missile defense moves beyond virtual reality. After all, nobody can say yet whether the project will be technologically feasible.... However, arms control and nonproliferation treaties have proven their stabilizing influence via deterrence.... Nobody denies that the phase of uncertainty after the Cold War requires additional and different security strategies. Only what should these be? Everything will depend on whether the president is willing to negotiate a modification of the ABM Treaty. The appealingly low-key rhetoric of his speech, especially vis-à-vis Russia, could be an indication of his willingness to do so."
"ABM Soon Not Worth Paper On Which It Was Written"
Wolfgang Koydl asserted in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (5/2): "Nobody should say that Bush is unable to learn: The president is now planning to consult friends and allies concerning missile defense. But the issue of missile defense has lost a great deal of its significance, since the Europeans have shaken off their first defensive reflex and even Moscow acknowledges that a kind of protection against nuclear missiles is not a bad idea. But the issue still creates sufficient conflicting views.... Europe is suspecting the Bush government of interchanging the terms 'to consult' and 'to inform.' After all, it is thinkable that Washington laid down its plans long ago and is only now informing the allies. Before the first U.S. emissaries depart, one thing is clear: The Americans want this protective shield. They will forge it and allow nobody to tell them what they have to do."
ITALY: "The Road Of Dialogue"
Mario Platero commented in leading, business-oriented Il Sole 24 Ore (5/3): "It was a positive start. Bush asked to accelerate the conceptualizing of a new strategic balance. He did so also by embarking on a multilateral approach.... If he does not proceed on the road of dialogue and take a multilateral approach to review the ABM Treaty, there is a risk of relaunching an arms race. If Russia feels technologically disadvantaged, it would react by strengthening itself. And China would do the same.... Bush's first message was an aggressive one. The second one, the one of May 1st, is more conciliatory.... This is not only an occasion to make the world less vulnerable to the folly of destruction and blackmail coming from the rogue countries. It is also an opportunity to offer everyone the possibility of benefiting from technological advances."
"A Very Little 'Star' Shield"
Cesare De Carlo opined in leading conservative syndicate La Nazione/Il Resto del Carlino/Il Giorno (5/3): "Bush's shield is not the same as Reagan's. Or at least it is only partly so.... This plan does not cover only the United States, as it would be 'multilateral,' open to allies and even to Russia. It obeys a different strategic vision...that is based on a security balance."
RUSSIA: "Moscow's Stand Incoherent"
Vasiliy Safronchuk, criticizing Moscow's "incoherent" stand on a missile defense, said in nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (5/8): "Unfortunately, (Foreign Minister) Ivanov takes Bush's promises to consult Russia and cut nuclear arms on faith. At the same time, he emphasizes that the 1972 treaty remains a cornerstone of the existing security system. Sticking to that position in talks with the Americans gives hope for a mutually acceptable accord to maintain and strengthen strategic stability. This is all the more feasible because many European countries, China and India hold similar positions. It would be unwise not to talk with the Americans only because we find their approach unacceptable."
"Bush As Good As His Word"
Boris Volkhonsky said in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (5/7): "Russia, unable to stop the United States, has clearly resigned itself to its plans, deciding that it might as well join them. All the U.S. president had to do was say a few words about...its willingness to cooperate with a country that is not, and cannot be, a strategic adversary, and about its not intending to make unilateral decisions. Moscow was sensitive enough to pick up the signal, obviously satisfied with how things turned out. But as words change, the NMD plans don't. Moscow's softening shows only that it realizes the pointlessness of resistance, what the U.S. president's latest pronouncements leaving a chance to join the sweeping 'nuclear shield' plans."
"Ball Is In Kremlin's Court"
Yevgeny Antonov commented in reformist Vremya Novostei (5/7): "The upcoming visit to Moscow by Paul Wolfowitz...is more balm for the wounds of Moscow's geopoliticians who are nostalgic for the glorious days of a bipolar world. Bush has taken a step to meet the Kremlin. Now it is the Kremlin's turn.... The Americans, with a $300 billion military budget, are certain to solve all technological problems, and there is no doubt that sooner or later they will secure the nod from their allies in Europe and may even win loyalty from China. Before they do so, Moscow would do well to get them to make as many concessions as possible for the inevitable deployment of a missile defense."
"It Came As No Surprise"
Yuri Yershov said in official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (5/4): "Basically, the statement came as no surprise.... Moscow's reaction to the United States' proposed withdrawal from the ABM Treaty is not what Washington might have expected. Though it is not elated, of course, it does not dramatize things, either. According to Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, it is fundamentally important that America, as Bush stated, does not intend to take one-sided steps or table ready-made schemes, and will consult on [NMD], including with Russia, which is ready for such consultations."
"Moscow Exercises Restraint"
Yuri Babich pointed out in official parliamentary Parlamentskaya Gazeta (5/4): "Evidently aware of a possible reaction to his decision, which can undercut the very basis of strategic stability in the contemporary world, the U.S. president thought it best to call the leaders of a number of major powers, including the [Russian] president.... That probably explains why Moscow's official reaction to the Bush speech has not been as harsh as might have been expected inside Russia and outside it. It looks as if the sides don't feel like quarrelling now and will keep the doors open for further talks on this vital issue."
"Devil In Details"
Reformist Izvestiya (5/4) front-paged this by Yevgeniy Bai and Dmitriy Safonov: "The master of the White House, in a bid to stave off a rough reaction from Moscow, contacted Putin...prior to the statement.... But all that is just icing on the cake. The important thing is that a decision has been made, and no protestations from Russia can change it. Hence the almost optimistic reaction from official Moscow. Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov says that Russia is ready for consultations on strategic stability. This is putting a brave face on a sorry business. The Russian armed forces have nothing with which to counter the new U.S. program: the notorious 'appropriate response' is unfeasible."
"Bush Tones Down"
Dmitriy Gornostayev commented on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (5/4): "Overall, the Bush speech, propaganda aside, is a small step to meet Moscow. On the one hand, it contains nothing new on the negative side; on the other, it clearly calls for a real dialogue on strategic stability. How Russian-American relations will evolve depends, in large measure, on Washington even now, after the Bush speech. The White House, it seems, is beginning to realize that aggressiveness is not enough for success in international affairs.... Washington, too, understands that it can only talk with Moscow as an equal partner. Other forms of dialogue are unacceptable."
"Readiness To Consult Is an Asset"
Vladislav Dunayev remarked in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (5/4): "The George Bush team is a hand-picked group of professionals, and its readiness to consult is its forte."
"Bush Tried To Cushion Effect"
Centrist army Krasnaya Zvezda noted in a page-one commentary by Aleksei Lyashchenko (5/4): "Aware of the importance and danger of its move, Washington tried to cushion its outside effect. Bush, reportedly on his own initiative, telephoned President Putin to inform him of the main points of his upcoming statement. Also, as he was making the speech, he said that he intended to consult Russia and other countries on NMD."
"Bush Sweetened Bitter Pill"
Leonid Nikolayev wrote in nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (5/4): "As he called Putin...the U.S. president suddenly suggested that they should meet.... Knowing the Americans, you can guess easily that, without budging an inch in their hostile attitude toward Russia, they decided they could simply change their rhetoric for the time being and sweeten the bitter pill...hoping to cajole Putin into major concessions crippling to this country."
AUSTRIA: "Calculation With Many Unknown Quantities"
Liberal Der Standard carried a commentary by foreign affairs editor Christoph Winder (5/3): "One unknown factor of NMD is cost. And aren't the threats the United States would most likely be confronted with exactly of a kind the best missile defense system would be unable to fend? Another unknown factor concerns the military and political reactions...that NMD might trigger. Bush has made an effort to present...NMD as something that will be of benefit not only for the United States but also for its allies. This deserves respect, but in view of the many uncertainties surrounding NMD, there is the justified fear that it may develop into an...insecurity factor. So far, the Bush administration has not delivered a proof to the contrary."
BELGIUM: "Bush Is Looking For Imbalance"
Jean-Paul Collette commented in left-of-center Le Soir (5/3): "In fact, Bush's proposed 'shield' demonstrates the new American intention to create a strategic imbalance in favor of the United States, to increase the gap with Russia and, in one word, to play the role of the only superpower.... Could the old ABM Treaty be discarded? Why not, provided that Washington manages to convince the rest of the world of the reality of the threats which the MD system is supposed to counter. And provided that the demarche takes the Europeans into account and does not leave them as second class allies."
BULGARIA: "A Bold Statement After The 101th NIght"
Socialist opposition Duma commented (5/3): "The [Bush] statement did not surprise, but it did disappoint.... By liquidating the basic international security [embedded in the] ABM Treaty, Bush put an equation sign between U.S. interests and global interests, and thus affirmed the notion of the U.S. exclusivity."
CZECH REPUBLIC: "Leader With An Umbrella"
Petr Fischer commented in centrist Lidove noviny (5/3): "The world has changed radically in the past thirty years...and it is necessary to adjust defense systems accordingly.... Bush expressed clearly the orientation of the United States in this new situation. He took the first step...and he pointed the way; something which the indecisive Europe or the weakened Russia would not do. What matters now is how flexible George Bush will be in negotiations with his partners, whom he will accept into his MD, and whether he will be able to convince the Russians about its contribution.... Now it is time for tactful diplomacy, something Bush has not exactly succeeded in so far."
CROATIA: "Bush's Open Missile Game"
Military analyst Fran Visnar commented in Zagreb-based Vjesnik (5/3): "Let's face it--the chance [of MD prompting] a new arms race are not great. Russia doesn't have enough money to challenge the Americans, while China is...significantly underdeveloped."
DENMARK: "Defense Is The Key To MD"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende judged (5/4): "If the Americans consider it necessary to implement MD in order to protect their interests, we [Denmark] ought to be open to their demands.... Denmark would be guilty of overestimating its importance, if it thought that it could prevent the United States from developing the system.... What possible interest could Denmark have in blocking a system that could eliminate threats to world peace? Russia's cautious reaction [to MD] shows that it is well aware of the threats posed by rogue states.... The fact that MD is a defensive system should be pressed home in consultations with China."
FINLAND: "Bush Plans To Remove Obstacles To Missile Defense"
Leading, independent Helsingin Sanomat asserted (5/3): "The only remaining superpower seems to have settled the fate of the ABM Treaty alone. Bush is consistent in his policy of which the most recent example is the Kyoto Protocol. The contents of the promised 'genuine' consultations are unclear because Washington's own plans for the missile defense continue to be controversial and incomplete."
"Does Cooperation Allow For Compromise?"
Independent Aamulehti editorialized (5/3): "There have been no credible explanations as to why rogue states or terrorists would launch missiles to attack the United States while they could use bombs that fit in a suitcase, for example. What was good in the president's speech was that he promised...to consult with allies and adversaries. By offering unilateral cuts in strategic nuclear weapons, Bush also appeared to recognize that the arms race should not be rekindled. Does his offer of cooperation make room for compromises?"
IRELAND: "Nuclear Defense"
The moderately conservative Irish Times opined (5/5): "He coupled them (plans for a nuclear missile defence system) with proposals for radical cuts in U.S. stocks of nuclear weapons and,with significant undertakings to have genuine consultations on the new system with allies and the other powers.... That has helped to mitigate hostile reaction to what is potentially a very dangerous development, which could trigger a new nuclear arms race.... [But] to confront theoretical risks from such 'rogue states' with such elaborate and costly technological fixes, devalues the roles of politics and diplomacy, which are surely much more capable of tackling them. Bush has an awful lot of convincing to do before missile defense is generally accepted."
THE NETHERLANDS: "Plausible Argument, But Caution Urged"
Influential, liberal De Volkskrant held (5/4): "Even though it is still questionable whether a missile defense shield is technically and financially feasible and even though total invulnerability does not exist...[Bush] will pursue the plan. And in order to do so, he has to abrogate the ABM Treaty. It is a fact that this treaty is outdated.... Current threats come from rogue states such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea... This argument is plausible: The European allies and Russia had a reason for toning down their initial criticism of Bush's plans. But Europe should emphasize to Bush that the ABM Treaty should not be lifted unilaterally.... Otherwise, the plans could be interpreted as a hegemonic attempt to become invulnerable to Russian and Chinese missiles that could tempt these states to get involved in a new arms race."
NORWAY: "The Dream Of Star Wars"
Independent VG commented (5/4): "Bush's envoys will present the carrot that hopefully will weaken international skepticism. It consists of promises of international cooperation on a missile defense that will also protect U.S. allies and friends.... And it might be precisely this knowledge that has now caused Russia to soften its resistance and instead talk about a possible cooperation."
"Missile Defense At Any Price"
Social democratic Dagsavisen held (5/3): "What is unclear is if the United States will engage in real consultations. Bush gave...the strong impression that he had already made a decision, and that from where he stands, all that remains is to give the rest of the world clear enough directives.... New threats from new countries make a good case for a discussion of the ABM Treaty. But the negotiations must be real, and the ABM Treaty must remain until there is a broad agreement on something new and better.... The road to security for all can only go through arms control and disarmament based on binding international agreements."
POLAND: "Bush's Shield"
Krystyna Szelestowska wrote in leftist Trybuna (5/4): "Bush decided to win support for his initiative not only from...the American people but also from Western European allies--who have some reservations, not to say opposition--and from the decisive opponents of NMD, foremost Russia.... Russia has a limited area to maneuver. It will try to haggle, it will express its readiness to negotiate and willingness to discuss a new position. It will ultimately have to yield because it does not have the power let alone the resources to take up the challenge and create its own project.... The U.S. administration is determined to build an anti-missile shield in spite of Russia's objection. It will be easier as the objection of [its] European allies is beginning to wane in light of the promise that the anti-missile umbrella will cover U.S.' friends in Europe and the Far East."
ROMANIA: "Washington's Prudence"
Daniel Munteanu commented in independent Curierul National (5/4): "Washington demonstrated more prudence by launching the nuclear defense initiative at the same time as a round of consultations with both its European allies and Moscow."
SLOVENIA: "Bombs Are Falling, Let's Open An Umbrella"
Left-of-center Delo opined on its front page (5/3): "The more technologically impossible and politically disputable [MD] is, the more the Americans are enthusiastic about it. They assure that in changed conditions, an actual establishment of American nuclear monopoly would guarantee peace, security, and stability in the entire world. It is not very convincing, but nobody has expected that the absolute insanity [of MAD] would be replaced by something wiser."
SPAIN: "Putin Doesn't Shield Himself"
Conservative ABC wrote (5/3): "The moderated response of Vladmir Putin to the deployment of a missile defense system is a political success for Bush..... Bush, excellently advised in this case, had the sense to telephone Putin to explain his plans.... Russia herself could benefit from the missile shield, or better, receive other compensations. Everything is up for negotiation.... Bush, whose foreign policy is now taking shape, has proposed what appears to be a defensive mechanism for the new international order."
"An Unnecessary Shield"
Center-left El Pais wrote (5/3): "The new Pandora's box opened by Bush...is for Europe a bad initiative. For decades, European leaders have told their fellow citizens that the ABM Treaty was the cornerstone of global security. The 1972 treaty might have been superceded by other events, but it would be much better to adapt it to current reality than axing [it].... If Bush goes forward it would be best to do so in close cooperation with his allies and in good faith consultations with those who are not his allies. Simply imposing this matter of planetary significance would not be the best way to initiate an imperial presidency."
SWEDEN: "Missile Defense A Threat To Rogue States"
Conservative morning Svenska Dagbladet declared on its editorial page (5/6): "The missile defense plans have resulted in much outcry over an unsafe world, since it might trigger an arms race with China and Russia. However, opponents disregard the fact that China already has started an arms race, and that Russia now is in a downward spiral.... And one should ask how the world will become less safe if the United States is prepared to send a missile defense capability to crisis spots?"
TURKEY: "Costly, Tough And Dangerous Project"
Haluk Ulman commented in economics/politics Dunya (5/8): "One basic question requires a good answer: The Cold War is over, as is the possibility of a Russian missile attack. So whom is the NMD to be used against? Countries like North Korea and Iraq are mentioned. However, this argument is far from convincing because these countries neither have nuclear weapons, nor long range missiles to carry them."
"What Kind Of Shield?"
Sami Kohen opined in mass-appeal Milliyet (5/4): "Turkey gains importance vis-a-vis this project.... Turkey's location becomes very important against the Iranian and Iraqi threats. Will this 'shield' be able to protect Turkey as well? How much will Turkey's protection play in the MD strategy? Turkish officials note the new strategy requires some points to be concrete, and some questions to be answered. Grossman's contacts in Ankara will probably answer their questions."
AUSTRALIA: "Bush Drops A Bombshell"
An editorial in the business-oriented Australian Financial Review stated (5/7): "It is sensible to review missile defense systems and acknowledge the weaknesses in the ABM Treaty. But in recognizing that the main nuclear threat these days comes from unexpected quarters and arms races involving smaller countries, Bush has pointed to the right way to deal with this issue, and that is through multilateral diplomacy. The wrong way would be for the United States to pursue a new approach to missile security unilaterally. That could leave some allies feeling less protected and, more importantly, it could prompt an increase is missile production by rivals.... The correct approach for Australia to adopt is to encourage the United States not to abrogate the ABM Treaty unilaterally but to build on it."
"The Enduring Myth Of Star Wars"
An editorial in the liberal Melbourne Age held (5/4): "The missile defense system is dangerous, unnecessary and unworkable. Unfortunately, if it comes to pass, Australia, at least under the present government, may play an important role in its development through the relay station at Pine Gap.... There is in fact no good national interest in Australia being involved in this scheme. To do so would harm our regional relationships--especially our relationship with China.... It would also increase the perception at home and abroad that Australia is subservient to U.S. interests."
"Bush Hits Target On Missile Defense"
The conservative national Australian opined (5/3): "Bush has outlined his administration's most important strategic initiative.... It is a bold vision: It could see a big reduction in the U.S. nuclear arsenal and, ultimately, a more secure world. But it also carried the risks of upsetting some U.S. allies and encouraging strategic isolation of its adversaries--all for the sake of a system that may not live up to its promises.... Bush's big challenge will be containing China's anger.... Beijing can be expected to aim its vitriol against Australia for hosting U.S. defense facilities.... The challenge for Australia will be to strike a measured and evolving policy that is sensitive to both the United States and China. This means qualified support for missile defense as long as the new system does not undermine the regional security balance."
CHINA: "U.S. Missile Shield A Dangerous Plan"
An editorial in the official English-language China Daily read (5/4): "No matter what excuses the United States uses to justify its ambitious program, its irresponsible move to push ahead with deployment of the missile defense plan is nothing more than a new threat to world peace and security. To make way for the U.S. missile plan, the U.S. president did not hesitate to trample on an international treaty. Uncle Sam has more than once ignored international laws and principles in the pursuit of its own interests. In fact, the Bush administration's behavior in the past 100 days has illustrated that an ultra-self-centered 'America first' attitude is gaining more ground in U.S. foreign policy.... As the world's self-proclaimed leader, the United States seems to be pushing the world back into the Cold War era by seeking military confrontation.... By deploying such a costly missile shield, the United States...is apparently attempting to seek absolute military supremacy and even greater global hegemony. This ambition, instead of bringing security to the United States, will break the present fragile global security equilibrium."
HONG KONG SAR: "Missile Talk Could Leave China Out In The Cold"
Greg Torode wrote in the independent South China Morning Post (5/3): "It remains to be seen whether Mr. Bush's 'consultation' will be meaningful negotiation and discussion or mere 'notification' of U.S. intentions as even his European allies fear. But he is certainly keen to ensure he is at least giving the appearance of being diplomatic.... The China dynamic will be fascinating to watch. Beijing's opposition has been clear for months.... However, the Republican establishment believes it is setting new trends. In the current environment, few will have patience with China's shrill opposition.... Mutual concerns have pushed Beijing and Moscow closer in recent months. But if Mr. Bush can force Mr. Putin to budge, possibly through European pressure, it will isolate Beijing on this issue."
JAPAN: "India Eager To Improve Ties With U.S."
Business daily Nihon Keizai's New Delhi correspondent Yoshino observed (5/8): "The Indian government wasted no time in supporting Bush's call for the deployment of a [NMD] system. Behind India's strong support for the U.S.-proposed NMD program is a strategy, by which India is trying to seek the lifting of U.S. sanctions, improvement of bilateral ties and increased standing in the international community.... New Delhi had been critical about the U.S.-proposed NMD program out of concern that it would prompt China to build up its arms. India is clearly utilizing its support for the NMD program as a 'golden opportunity' to improve ties with the U.S. and promote its international position."
NEW ZEALAND: "Sledgehammer To Crack Nuclear Nut"
Top-circulation, moderate New Zealand Herald maintained (5/4): "Contradiction and confusion have been the hallmarks or Bush's initial foreign policy thrusts. They are evident again in his determination to replace the [ABM] Treaty with a missile defense system [which] is likely to provoke an arms race.... The United States, and other countries, have good cause to feel concern over the occasional irrational behavior of 'rogue' states. It is possible, however, to exaggerate the threat. International security would be better served by the U.S. adopting a more sensible approach towards states of roguish disposition. The ultimate paradox is that the U.S., having alienated China and Russia, will probably be no safer.... There may still be a chance to convince the president that the nuclear menace is best tackled by building upon existing disarmament and nonproliferation treaties."
"New Nuclear Age"
South Island's largest-circulation, moderate Christchurch Press observed (5/4): "Bush's decision to develop an anti-ballistic missile system has at least one sure advantage--it opens a new era in nuclear deterrence. Dangers flow from that, of course, but so do potential advantages. Because of the chorus of objections arising in response to the president's plans, it is easy not to hear the constructive points he makes. Not to pay them attention would be a mistake, because they present the opportunity for the world to cut its nuclear stockpiles and abandon the prevailing doctrine of massive nuclear retaliation."
SINGAPORE: "Scarecrows"
The pro-government Straits Times asserted (5/8): "At this point, nothing but a hope and a prayer sustains the missile shield. The hope is charming enough: Ever-optimistic Americans, mostly Republicans, believe that if the United States can place men on the moon, erecting an umbrella over the country must be a cinch.... The prayer is less charming. Donald Rumsfeld gave voice to it last week when he said a shield made sense even if it was not completely effective, for it could function like a 'scarecrow.'.... This assumes America's enemies or competitors are...stupid.... They are not. Here is how they will react: Firstly, they will not believe Mr. Rumsfeld's prayer, but they will, Mr. Bush's hope. They, too, will assume that the shield may work, and they will take steps, immediately, to beat it...setting off a regional arms race. The end result will not be more security, but less, for everyone, including the United States."
"'Son Of Star Wars' May Trigger N-Arms Build-Up"
U.S. Bureau's Louise Branson wrote in the pro-government Straits Times (5/4): "The question now is: Will this [anti-MD] view prove correct, with the shield becoming a dangerous and expensive folly? Or will it end up viewed...as smart strategy? The final answer depends mostly on whether a widely-held image of Mr. Bush--as a president taking America down an isolationist course of self- interest--is accurate.... As he sends delegations fanning out across the world...the details [of the plan] will presumably...give a better guide as to whether his approach is more mature than it appears. For now, the image of a unilateralist Mr. Bush has the greater ring of truth to it, particularly in the context of other decisions like his abrupt abandonment of the Kyoto treaty."
SOUTH KOREA: "U.S.-DPRK, Inter-Korean Relations Will Be Adversely Affected"
Conservative Segye Ilbo opined (5/3): "It is highly likely that, as long as a U.S. missile defense plan is primarily targeted at North Korea, it will not only adversely affect future U.S.-North Korea and inter-Korean relations, but also accelerate an arms race in Northeast Asia. In particular, the U.S. missile plan could scuttle President Kim Dae-jung's engagement policy toward North Korea. In this respect, it is desirable for the government to reserve its support for the U.S. missile defense and to maintain its position that South Korea needs more consultation with its allies and other relevant countries."
"U.S. MD Will Bring New Tension To Northeast Asia"
Independent Dong-a Ilbo argued (5/3): "It is obvious that the MD plan will bring new tension and conflict to Northeast Asia. South Korea...must maintain its solid traditional alliance with the United States while taking into consideration the positions of North Korea, Russia, and China.... We fear that it might also have a negative influence on inter-Korean dialogue."
"We Oppose U.S. MD System"
Independent Hankyoreh Shinmun averred (5/3): "We would like to express our clear-cut opposition to the U.S. scheme to revive part of Reagan's vision of a 'Star Wars' plan. Such a move runs directly counter to the current trend of peace and arms reduction.... It is also very worrisome that the United States expressed its willingness to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty.... It is high time to launch a worldwide campaign to thwart the U.S. move."
TAIWAN: "Swinging Between Unilateralism And Collective Security"
Centrist, pro-status quo China Times commented (5/4): "The more determined the United States is to build the missile defense system...the more likely that Beijing will adopt a tougher policy against Taiwan.... What worries us is that being sandwiched between the two strong powers will become more dangerous--rather than safer--for Taiwan."
"New Security Concept Of International Joint Defense"
The pro-independence Liberty Times judged (5/3): "The missile defense system...could help restrain those countries that use military might from rashly risking danger.... Two years ago, the Taiwan government...decided that it was necessary to build a [TMD] system in order to...secure Taiwan's national security.... Taiwan should be happy to see Bush's announcement of building the NMD system."
VIETNAM: "President Bush And New Missile Defense Plan"
Newspaper-of-record Tuoi Tre, mouthpiece of the Ho Chi Minh City Communist Youth League, judged (5/3): "In advance of his speech...Bush phoned Putin and leaders from Germany, Britain, France and Canada.... Bush probably understands that reactions from Russia and Europe...will decide whether or not his plan will succeed. "
INDIA: "Forward Defense"
The nationalist Hindustan Times had this analysis by Brahma Chellaney, Center For Policy Research (5/8): "The impending visits of...Armitage and...Shelton can help lay the groundwork for building strategic ties. If Washington were to interpret its export-control laws more broadly in relation to India, it would throw open for sale many high-tech commercial items.... Further, there is no reason why Washington should still keep India as a key target of the punitive restrictions of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. India faces a difficult situation in Asia. That demands strategic engagement with Washington.... With or without NMD, India's security will be adversely affected by the increasing trans-Himalayan missile threat and Beijing's continued nuclear and missile transfers to Pakistan.... If it is seen to work, the United States could extend a missile umbrella to its allies.... An India strategically aligned with the United States could avail of such benefits.... India can partner the United States on strategic defense against theater and long-range missiles and also against international terrorism and to safeguard border and share intelligence."
"In Praise Of Diplomatic Exuberance"
The centrist Hindu had this by strategic affairs editor C. Raja Mohan (5/7): "Despite all the flak the foreign office statement on NMD has drawn, there were very few departures from past Indian positions. India's support for deep cuts being proposed by President Bush, its call for de-alerting of nuclear forces, and its endorsement of the talks among major powers on NMD are reasonably straightforward.... As an outcaste in the old nuclear order, India has every reason to herald its demise and welcome the construction of a more credible global nuclear arrangement.... President Bush's plan which opens the door for a rewriting of the rules of the nuclear game offers India a chance to be a part of the nuclear solution and not the proliferation problem.... For once the Indian establishment might have got it right in sensing the importance of responding positively to the U.S. proposals on NMD."
"Yes, Mr. Bush"
The nationalist Hindustan Times maintained (5/5): "While formulating India's response to the missile shield, the decision-makers might have kept in mind the fact that keeping the United States in good humor cannot be the cornerstone of our foreign policy.... In the midst of the widespread misgivings that have been expressed, India's strangely submissive attitude stands out all the more prominently."
"Welcome Change In U.S. Attitude"
Pro-BJP, Urdu daily Pratap held (5/5): "India will have to watch its steps while trying to keep a balance between three, at times conflicting, dimensions of maintaining friendly relations with Russia, improving ties with China and evolving a new relationship with the United States.... Although India's enthusiastic support to President Bush's new nuclear policy stunned the world community, the interests of the two countries have so converged that it has become more important for New Delhi to make common ground with Washington than to care about the opposition to the latter's change of its old nuclear policy."
"Playing Second Fiddle"
An editorial in the centrist Hindu averred (5/4): "India's uncritical acclamation of the new (U.S.) strategic vision...has only underlined the Vajpayee administration's all too eager willingness to jettison the right to strategic autonomy.... By acquiescing in the emerging strategic agenda of the sole superpower, New Delhi finds itself embarrassingly alone among all the global powers and emerging players."
"Irrational Exuberance"
The centrist Times Of India ran this editorial (5/4): "Maybe there is something that the rest of the world doesn't know, perhaps an angle that was personally conveyed to Jaswant Singh by Condoleezza Rice when she called him from Washington. Only this could explain the irrational exuberance of New Delhi's response to Bush's declaration that the United States needs new concepts of deterrence (and) overlooks all references to Washington's decision on ballistic missile defense and the call for trashing the [ABM] Treaty."
"Under The Umbrella"
The pro-government Pioneer's editorial read (5/4): "India's uncharacteristically positive reaction to the Bush [MD] plan...both in its speed and tone...indicates diplomatic maturity.... India's policy of non-alignment has kept it on the fringe of global power politics. It is time she shed this antiquated stance and realized her potential as a key player in South Asia.... India's pragmatic reaction to the Bush administration's latest missile defense plan should be seen in this context."
PAKISTAN: "Star Wars Revisited"
The centrist national News said in its editorial (5/4): "The rest of the world does not...see eye to eye with Mr. Bush on his military strategy. With the notable exception of India and a few western allies, all the major players in the international system view the U.S. [NMD] with suspicion. Mr. Bush's thinly veiled contempt for the [ABM] Treaty stirs fears of another more widely spread and costly international competition.... The Bush strategy is bound to set in motion a new phase of tension in world politics."
"Bush's Nuclear Politics"
Karachi-based, independent national Dawn held (5/3): "Theoretically speaking, if anti-ballistic missiles are allowed to form a part of the nuclear states' arsenals, it will inevitably lead to an arms race.... A state might be prompted to enhance the strength of its missile armory even further. This portends ill for international peace and stability."
NEPAL: "U.S. Defense Shield"
The centrist Kathmandu Post observed (5/4): "The consequences may well turn out to be contrary to what Bush envisages. His plan to build a shield against missile attacks may trigger a new arms race.... China too may react in more than words.... The plan to develop and deploy a missile defense shield looks set to become the latest point of contention in the U.S.' tense relationship with China. A joint military base at Pine Gap in northern Australia...will threaten not only China but also Asia. Bush's plans may sound good to his allies, but it may increase a sense of insecurity in the region."
SRI LANKA: "U.S. Missile Plan Shatters Balance Of Terror"
An op-ed page article by Ameen Izzadeen in the independent popular Daily Mirror held (5/4): "It is no surprise that an administration which drove the biggest nail into the Kyoto Protocol coffin...is on a reckless path of environmental destruction with mini-nukes and star wars."
ISRAEL: "Rethinking The Unthinkable"
The independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (5/3): "Bush cogently outlined the rationale for 'rethinking the unthinkable.'... Bush is right that missile defenses are the key, and that a new strategic framework must replace the obsolete [ABM] Treaty.... This is no longer in a bipolar world in which two superpowers...face off in a stalemate of [MAD].... Flash forward to the 21st century, and you find that the ABM Treaty...is the rogue state's ticket to nuclear blackmail.... Bush stated, 'We must work with allies and friends who wish to join with us and against the harm that [today's tyrants] can inflict.' To this Israel should continue to say, 'Count us in.' Western democracies, rather than carping about American hegemony, should be lending their hand to an endeavor that is critical to the future of the entire free world."
TUNISIA: "Only Zionist State Will Benefit"
Mohamed Ben Salem editorialized in independent, French-language Le Quotidien (5/5): "The priority that the US gives to the Zionist state on military matters means that Israel will be the only country in the region to benefit from the SDI program."
CANADA: "Behind The Shield"
The conservative National Post opined (5/7): "Beneath their stated technological, legal and diplomatic concerns, one suspects the shield's opponents also harbor a simple left-wing animosity toward the vaguely conceived 'military-industrial complex' that will build it. And they hate the fact the United States has the know-how to put itself beyond the reach of lesser nations, and a pragmatic president willing to take that sensible step.... If the shield can be built, it should be."
"Missile Plan's Risks"
Quebec's conservative English-language Gazette suggested (5/4): "Washington should be careful that its efforts to enhance its security don't have the opposite consequence. Ottawa, Washington's partner in NORAD, should not shy away from asking some tough questions when it receives Mr. Bush's envoy in the coming days."
"Time To Stand Up"
The leading Globe and Mail pointed out (5/3): "Real urgency is attached to this huge act of folly.... Bush's rationale for his reckless initiative is the perceived obsolescence of the [ABM] Treaty.... Leave aside the enormous cost.... Leave aside the fact that the West would remain acutely vulnerable to nuclear, chemical or biological attack by other means--a bomb in the bus station, a freighter in the harbor. The principal reason to resist the Bush blueprint is the near certainty that it will renew the perilous spiral of the arms race, most notably on the part of China."
"Stirring Nuclear Trouble"
The liberal Toronto Star opined (5/3): "George W. Bush delivered a contradictory, confusing and troubling message this week calling for 'a new way of thinking' about nuclear weapons.... Cutting nuclear stockpiles makes sense. Scrapping the ABM does not. More to the point, there's no good reason to link the two.... Inviting a global arms control crisis today, to head off a threat that may not materialize tomorrow, is not strategic thinking. It is strategic folly."
ARGENTINA: "A Shield That Inaugurates A New Era"
Jorge Elias, daily-of-record La Nacion's international columnist, observed (5/3): "Bush's announcement that he will build a new anti-missile defense system represents, in itself, the end of an era in dealing with the East-West axis or, perhaps, the beginning of another one."
BRAZIL: "What Possible Threat Justifies Shield?"
Center-right O Estado de S. Paulo asked (5/6): "What possible threat...justifies a program that has an initial price tag of $60 billion?... The United States must take into consideration Russian security interests, and cannot take unilateral initiatives [on] nuclear strategy.... What remains to be seen is whether North Korea, Iran and Iraq represent a real threat to U.S. security that justifies an initiative that will certainly change the strategic balance."
CHILE: "New Nuclear Strategy"
Conservative, influential newspaper-of-record El Mercurio judged (5/5): "Bush announced this week the most important change of the last 30 years in U.S. nuclear arms race policy.... There is no doubt that Bush is right to acknowledge that the world has changed since the end of the Cold War.... Defense systems can eventually play an important role by granting a certain degree of protection from some threats, but the most serious threat comes from the proliferation of destructive weapons. This threat can only be fought with multilateral negotiations and measures that improve international cooperation, not by unilateral decisions."
ECUADOR: "A Cold War Turning Hot"
Omar Ospina opined in Quito's leading center-left Hoy (5/6): "Star Wars, the Reagan-era monster, is gaining strength. As the Colombian guerrillas do not merit the use of highly technological weapons, the United States had to invent or create a new...enemy: China.... The Asian giant all by itself justifies wasting money on the anti-missile shield."
GUATEMALA: "Bush's Galactic Shield"
Leading morning Prensa Libre (5/4) ran this column by Rodrigo Castillo Del Carmen: "The 1972 agreement may have become outdated...but it would be best to update it, rather than having the United States unilaterally destroy it.... The willingness of the United States to reduce its warheads is positive."
MEXICO: "The Hawks"
An editorial in left-of-center La Jornada read (5/3): "Just as in the Reagan era, the anti-missile system is an irritant in international relations...and a hostile gesture.... It is a matter of concern that Bush's hawks ignore what common sense should indicate: The cheapest, safest and most efficient manner to prevent a ballistic missile attack is to prevent it via diplomatic and political means."
##
|
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 |
|
|
|
