• Forum
• SITREP
• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security

• Space

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Public Eye

Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction

Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Africa Western Hemisphere

July 17, 2001 MISSILE DEFENSE: 'NEW MOMENTUM,' BUT OPPOSITION ONGOING

Overseas opinionmakers viewed with a familiar mix of irritation and resignation the Bush administration's "stepped-up" push for missile defense (MD) over the past week.  Analysts conceded that the release of a State Department "warning" memo, Deputy Defense Sec. Wolfowitz's Hill testimony and the successful intercept missile test all conspired to "give a much needed boost" and lend "an air of inevitability" to MD.  This did not deter critics of the system--far outnumbering spotty support from conservative outlets in Britain and Australia--from lashing out at the U.S., with centrist/left-leaning European media, Chinese dailies and worried editorialists in Japan and South Korea leading the charge.  Cries of "unilateralism" and concerns about U.S. "readiness to violate" the ABM Treaty were staples in skeptical editorials, which lumped MD with Kyoto, and even CTBT, as evidence of the U.S.' "defiant" disregard for both existing treaties and "the worries and criticism of other countries." 

 

DISMAY IN EUROPEAN CAPITALS:  Faced with U.S. determination, papers in several NATO capitals contended that Washington has discounted European opposition to MD, and that the U.S.' promise of consultations has amounted to little more than an effort to notify Allies of U.S. plans.  Looking ahead, Rome's left-leaning, influential La Repubblica saw any discussions on the margins of the G-8 as merely "giving the semblance of a consensus to a fait accompli."  Many advised their governments to use upcoming meetings in London and Genoa to signal their displeasure.  "It is no longer credible to prevaricate, claiming U.S. plans are unclear," said London's liberal Guardian, which urged PM Blair to oppose the plan and tell Mr. Bush that "the time is not right" for MD. 

 

'NO PANIC IN MOSCOW':  Russian commentators agreed with European colleagues that the U.S. is unlikely to back down on MD, but differed notably on the advice they proffered.  Emphasizing that recent events have caused "no panic in Moscow," some leading dailies suggested that, at this point, the Kremlin should shift gears from opposing U.S. MD plans to cutting a deal on ABM.  "It is in Russia's interest," declared reformist Kommersant, "to discuss what it thinks to be acceptable terms" for treaty review.  Indeed, Russian media pique was less prompted by MD per se, than by what they saw as "confusion" and "discrepancies" in recent USG statements on MD and by U.S. and Russian officials' "talking at cross purposes."  "With the spirit of Ljubljana still alive, it is time to start concrete talks on the future of the 1972 treaty and possible limits to its modification," intoned reformist Vremya MN. 

 

ASIAN ANXIETY:  Japanese and South Korean dailies stressed that the Wolfowitz testimony "shocked" both Russia and U.S. Allies, and, according to a Seoul paper, "exaggerated North Korea's threat to justify" MD.  "There are rising concerns that MD will alter the Asian security environment," concluded Tokyo's liberal Asahi.

EDITOR:  Katherine L. Starr

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:  This survey is based on 64 reports from 23 countries, July 13-17.  Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date. 

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "Blair's Testing Choice"

 

An editorial in the liberal Guardian held (7/17):  "For Tony Blair, a fundamental decision looms that cannot be ducked for much longer: whether to back U.S. plans for ballistic missile defense.  On this issue may ride to a large degree Britain's future relationship with both America and Europe....  Before President Bush shows up at Chequers on Thursday looking for renewed private assurances, if not outright public approval and a green light to use UK radar and tracking facilities, Mr. Blair really should pause and think....  [MD] is a long-term project with lasting consequences.  The same, hopefully, cannot be said of Mr. Bush....  What is certain is that at this present moment, MD is the paramount symbol of all that is irresponsible and alarming about his administration....  It is swiftly evolving as a key measure of post-Cold War Britain's commitment to a common European security separate from NATO and the State Department.  And it is rapidly becoming a bullet that Mr Blair...cannot dodge.  It is no longer credible to prevaricate, claiming U.S. plans are unclear; their overall thrust could not be clearer.  Blair must take a position.  Bush must be told the time is not right for MD."

 

"This Test Does Not Make The Case For Missile Defense"

 

The centrist Independent argued (7/16):  "One mid-air collision does not a working missile defense system make.  Yesterday's test proves only that the easiest technological issue has been resolved....  It leaves all the other objections to the missile defense plan in place....  The project makes no sense without a threat assessment which suggests that stopping ballistic missiles from rogue states is a more urgent use of spending on security by the United States and its Allies than anything else.  President Bush's failure to cite a specific threat lends credence to the idea that missile defense (note that the United States has dropped the 'national' for the purposes of promoting the plan abroad) is driven largely by the conjunction between two forces in politics.  One is isolationist public opinion, the other is the need of the famous military-industrial complex to find new things on which to spend 'tax dollars' now the Cold War is over....  When Mr. Bush arrives in London this week, the prime minister should tell him that, while he respects the right of the United States to self-defense, this scheme is an expensive and counter-productive mistake."

 

"Thank You, President Bush"

 

An editorial in the conservative Daily Telegraph held (7/16):  "The collapse of the Soviet Union has, paradoxically, made a nuclear war likelier than ever.  That is why we should all be cheering the successful test of George W. Bush's proposed missile defense shield.   For the first time, Washington appears to be prepared to invest enormously in a weapons system that has no offensive capability.  And, generously, Bush wants to extend the protective screen to his Allies.  Europeans thus stand to have all the benefits of missile defense with none of the costs of actually developing the system....  Having called on the United States to take on a more internationalist role, it seems odd to complain when it does so.  Opposition to the missile shield must be seen in context: European leaders are also attacking Washington over trade, the Kyoto treaty and...capital punishment.  It is appalling to think that they might be prepared to jeopardize their own security out of no higher motive than anti-Americanism."

 

FRANCE:  "Bush, Strong Arm Of Globalization"

 

Claude Serfati opined in left-of-center Liberation (7/16):  "President Bush's decision to deploy the anti-missile defense system is a strong message to the rest of the world. 

 

"How can one explain the commitment to a project that is financially so gigantic...technologically so immoderate, and at the same time so dangerous on a geopolitical level....   The militarization of the planet to which Mr. Bush has given a new impetus is without a doubt one of the factors that defines the 'actual neo-liberal globalization' that should preoccupy all those who are opposed to its logic."   

 

"Europe Skeptical but Resigned"

 

In right-of-center Le Figaro, Luc de Barochez wrote (7/16):  "Europeans are forced to submit.  Far from being a chimera, the American missile shield project is taking shape.  The imminent demise of the ABM Treaty...offends the Europeans.  They foresee the problems: opening the way not only to an unraveling of all arms control agreements, but also to the militarization of space."

 

GERMANY:  "On Target"

 

Leo Wieland noted in a front-page editorial in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (7/16):  "[The success of the fourth missile test]...has given President Bush political momentum at a critical juncture for his ambitious defense plans.   At his second meeting with President Putin...he will have new proof not only of his determination but also of the system's feasibility....  The domestic prerequisite for a change is that Bush wins the battle with the Democratic majority in the Senate over funding for the next defense budget and compliance with the ABM Treaty.  This still lies ahead of him.  But after the latest missile test, the odds for Bush have improved."

 

"The Method Is: Do Or Die"

 

Stefan Kornelius judged in an editorial in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (7/16):  "The United States' attitude towards international treaties and obligations does not only become obvious with respect to missile defense or the ABM Treaty, but also in connection with the entire arms control package, agreements in the realm of international law, and the treatment of rules within alliances.  The philosophy is 'do or die.'  The country is taking advantage of its strength and is demanding loyalty."

 

"When The Bullets Hit The Target"

 

Rolf Paasch maintained in an editorial in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (7/16):  "The White House strategy to cement facts with the help of silos creates more security problems than it promises to solve--in relations with China, the real focus of the United States' geopolitical repositioning, and in relations with the European partners, who once again are staying deafeningly silent....  During his trip to Europe in June, Bush still promised consultations over MD.  Last week, Washington sent a demarche to its embassies:  The ambassadors were asked to inform their host countries of the fact that the United States will build MD facilities which may violate the ABM Treaty.  This is how fast things can move in the West when the bullets hit the target."

 

"U.S. Systematically Removing Itself From All Obligations"

 

Roland Heine observed in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (7/16):  "The clear announcement by the Bush administration of its intention to break the ABM Treaty may be a particularly conspicuous example of superpower behavior.  But this treaty is not the only obligation in the field of security policy which the United States is eager to get rid of because it limits the country's military options....  The United States is calling the whole arms control mechanism into question.  Europe will be among those who have to pay the price."

 

 

 

 

"Concerned But Powerless"

 

Right-of-center Stuttgarter Nachrichten maintained (7/16):  "The Europeans have justified concerns about U.S. MD plans, but they are also more or less powerless.  Of course, it is right to point to the risky consequences of the [MD] program.  But it would be nanve to think that it would be possible to talk the United States out of its protective shield.  It seems to be more important to take President Bush at his word and to urge him to take unilateral disarmament steps, which he promised to take in parallel to the MD project.  After the United States practically cancelled the ABM Treaty, the European partners must now call upon the United States to enter into negotiations which will lead to new security agreements and thus to more disarmament."

 

"Finally, Clarity"

 

Centrist Leipziger Volkszeitung (7/16) had this to say: "The successful U.S. missile test also has a good side.  It finally creates clarity that President Bush is serious about his going-it-alone in his efforts to build up a defense shield.  Bush's consultations with the European partners are confined to taking note of Allied concerns.  The president takes them seriously only in order to be even more persistent in presenting his arguments for the missile defense shield."

 

"Speaking With One Voice"

 

Left-of-center Nuernberger Nachrichten opined (7/16):  "Currently, Bush does not create the impression that he would take seriously the concerns of the European Allies.  But they should not underestimate their influence.  Even the United States cannot afford implementing this arms project against the will of its partners in the Alliance.  The question is only whether they speak with one voice or whether they allow the United States to drive a wedge between them.  But this is up to them to decide."

 

ITALY:  "A 'Friendship Pact' Between Russia And China"

 

Moscow correspondent Fabrizio Dragosei commented in top-circulation, centrist Corriere della Sera (7/17):  "Certainly the new friendship pact signed yesterday by Russia and China is not a military alliance, but it has, nonetheless, a strong relevance from a strategic point of view....  And a strong signal was sent to Washington--given the fact that both countries have the same dispute going with the Bush administration regarding the anti-missile defense issue."

 

"Bush Remains The Determining Factor"

 

Prominent strategist/defense analyst Stefano Silvestri remarked in leading business Il Sole-24 Ore (7/17):  "Russia and China must choose between seeking an agreement with the Bush administration [on MD], by accepting a technologically (and strategically) subordinate role, and paying the high political and financial cost of a new race for nuclear rearmament.  Their response will also depend on the United States....  The challenge is that, in order to effectively respond to the new risks of a multipolar world, one may forget the risks of the old world, which may resume and prompt Russia and China to engage in new, risky strategic adventures, both in the military and political fields."

 

"Space Shield Test Successful"

 

A report by Washington correspondent Vittorio Zucconi in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica read (7/16): "There continues to be the impression--alarming for Allies and former enemies alike--that the Bush administration is dragging America and the rest of the world in a journey toward strategic uncertainty, without having really weighed all the consequences, and that it is moving with a superficiality that is prompted by the need to show its determination and strength in order to hide domestic political weakness and the lack of an electoral mandate.... 

 

"This is the same attitude that has led the White House to reject the Kyoto treaty without even informing the other countries, to become a minority in various UN commissions, to decide without consulting anybody on subsidies to the steel industry, and to embrace the doctrine of 'America first' and unilateralism.  In sum, there seems to be more of a desire to play the 'space cowboy' than to define a consistent vision of the U.S.' global role in the world....  In the post-Cold War era, the threat does not come from the big ICBM missile, but from kamikaze terrorists--from whom no space shields will ever be able to defend us."

 

"Bush The Gladiator Brandishes The Space Shield"

 

Aldo Rizzo commented in centrist, influential La Stampa (7/16):  "What should America's traditional allies,  who are also critical of the missile defense project, do at this point?  Should they take Bush's 'new strategy' as a challenge--i.e., an attempt by the United States to establish its hegemony, or, rather, as a delicate topic of discussion with the goal of obtaining guarantees on various points?"

 

"Missiles, Powell Seeking Putin's Agreement"

 

New York correspondent Mario Platero wrote in leading, business Il Sole-24 Ore (7/15): "Moscow is not completely rejecting the hypothesis of working together (on the space shield project), as it emerged clearly from the Bush-Putin summit in Ljubliana last June.  It may just be a matter of costs, but the message that the United States is sending to Russia with aggressive (Wolfowitz's) and conciliatory (Powell's) public statements is clear:  We are ready to negotiate but don't go too far or we will proceed unilaterally."

 

"Bush Goes Ahead With The Space Shield"

 

Anna Guaita filed from New York in Rome's centrist Il Messaggero (7/15):  "One hand on the trigger, the other hand reaching out in a friendly gesture.  This seems to be the policy of the Bush administration as far as defense is concerned.  Yesterday, as the Pentagon was getting ready to conduct a controversial missile defense test, Secretary Powell gave an interview to the Washington Post in which he stated that the United States will do its best in order to find a negotiated solution with Russia both on the space shield and on the 1972 ABM Treaty.  The reaction from Moscow was confused to say the least."

 

"Bush's Shield No Longer A Dream"

 

Washington correspondent Alberto Pasolini Zanelli judged in pro-government, leading center-right Il Giornale (7/16): "The success of the fourth test gives a boost to the space shield project, but it does not guarantee its triumph yet....  Technical difficulties are not the only obstacle.  There is the dispute with Congress over funding and, most of all, it is necessary to overcome widespread hostility among foreign governments as well as some of the international public opinion."

 

"The Pentagon: 'We Will Violate The ABM Treaty'"

 

A report from Washington in leading, business Il Sole-24 Ore said (7/13):  "The United States has informed its Allies that anti-missile defense tests 'may soon violate the ABM Treaty...in a matter of months not years.'  A similar note has reportedly been sent to Russia.  This is a brusque speed-up toward the space shield, with a switch from consultations to concrete facts and the project's implementation.  A jump forward that Bush plans to explain to his partners at the G-8 summit.  In giving out the news that the Allies have been informed, the State Department sources also confirmed the existence of a document that informs U.S. diplomats around the world that space shield tests are about to come into conflict with the [ABM Treaty]."

 

 

 

"Bush's Defiance On Space Shield:  'Ready To Violate Treaties'"

 

Washington correspondent Vittorio Zucconi filed for left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (7/13):  "As a lone  space rider trying to realize the dream that Reagan failed to realize, Bush is doing what he promised, what Europe feared and what Russia tried to avoid, i.e., he is beginning in Alaska this weekend, the construction of the first ground station for Star Wars....  This is a clear, unilateral violation of international treaties.  The State Department has already warned U.S. embassies around the world that they should prepare other governments for this news....  In order to formally soften the impact of this bullying, Washington has added generic promises that the issue will be 'discussed' at the G-8 summit, but 'discussing' during a few hours of routine meetings...is a euphemism aimed at saving the face of the Russians, the Europeans and the Japanese, and giving the semblance of a consensus to a fait accompli."

 

RUSSIA:  "Test Doesn't Violate Treaty"

 

Official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta carried a commentary by Yuri Yershov (7/17):  "The test is a clear sign that Washington is in earnest about deploying a national missile defense soon.  The missile tests already carried out or planned are no violation of the 1972 treaty.  You can't be sure, though, about construction projects and updating a radar in Alaska....  In a way, it is like the summer of 1945, when the United States, with the Potsdam Conference in full swing, tested an atom bomb in Nevada so as later, in August, to drop two such bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That show of force was meant to strengthen the hand of the then head of the White House Harry Truman in the postwar re-division of Europe.  Today's President George Bush evidently needs a successful test to feel more confident in Genoa where he hopes to sell his Western European allies on his NMD initiative.  The news about the successful test of an American missile has caused no panic in Moscow."

 

"U.S. Can Do It"

 

Mikhail Khodaryonok concluded in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (7/17): "[The test] proves that the United States can build a working missile defense to protect its territory from individual ballistic missiles."

 

"Russia, U.S. Talk At Cross Purposes"

 

Svetlana Babayeva and Yekaterina Grigoryeva weighed in on page one of reformist Izvestiya (7/17), citing Yevgeniy Myasnikov of Moscow's Arms, Power and Ecology Center:  "The test did not breach the ABM Treaty.  But deploying interceptor missiles in Alaska will....  Moscow should ponder a reasonable strategy to have a clear idea about what the Americans want from ABM and what we want.  So far, we have been talking at cross purposes."

 

"Test Makes No Difference"

 

Vladimir Petrovsky mused in reformist Vremya MN (7/17):  "The test does not make much difference....  The Democrats are unlikely to end their opposition to NMD deployment....  President Bush, preparing to meet with Putin in Genoa, can't really hope to have his position look stronger either.  There have been discrepant statements by members of his administration trying to convince Russia that the United States is moving [inexorably] away from the ABM Treaty: a memorandum by the State Department on the timing of the U.S.' withdrawal from the treaty, a missile test, a cancelled meeting of a joint commission, all of that while Condoleezza Rice is speaking of a desire to keep working with Russia.  How is Russia supposed to react to that?...  Now, with the Ljubljana spirit still alive, is the time to start concrete talks on the future of the 1972 treaty and possible limits to its modification.  The Russian president says that he is ready to talk.  But as he says he is ready, the other side comes up with befuddling statements, complicating the only possible algorithm of action, which is to outline the area of a possible

political compromise and get down to specifics."

 

"Success"

 

Yevgeniy Bai reported in reformist Izvestiya (7/16):  "After this test, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that America will use every method to push its MD project.  Whatever doubts there may be lie elsewhere.  NSA Condoleezza Rice told a briefing at the White House that the United States and Russia should go beyond the 1972 ABM Treaty.  The two countries, she said, must develop new strategic parameters....  Secretary of State Colin Powell...says that the United States and the Russians need an understanding, agreement, treaty, something to enable them to move further in implementing the MD program.  That 'something,' it turns out, is not an open book to experts in Washington, or to Moscow."

 

"Fresh Impulse For MD"

 

Boris Volkhonsky commented on page one of reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (7/16):  "Without a doubt, the successful test is a fresh impulse for the plans to deploy MD and robs its opponents of one of their chief arguments."

 

"It Is Clear That U.S. Will Not Go Back On Its Plans"

 

Reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (7/14) ran this by Boris Volkhonsky and Leonid Gankin: "It is clear that the United States will not go back on its plans, so it is in Russia's interest to discuss what it thinks to be acceptable terms of reviewing the treaty.  Moscow is banking on two factors: one, the Democrats may stonewall (in the Senate), and two, the U.S.' Allies in Europe don't like the administration's plans.   But the Democrats...cant really kill the project.  All they can do is cut the budget appropriations.  As for the Allies, they will have to give in to Washington's pressure sooner or later."

 

"Bush Picks Vershbow as NMD's Advocate"

 

Mikhail Zygar remarked in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (7/14): "No doubt, President Bush has picked Alexander Vershbow, knowing that he is convinced of a need for NMD deployment."

 

"Critical But Not Disastrous"

 

Vadim Solovyov commented on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (7/13):  "Washington is making desperate attempts to step up work to review the 1972 ABM Treaty.  The actions it may take on the way to NMD are critical by themselves but not disastrous....  Washington has entered a narrow and quite volatile transition zone between being a party to the treaty and ignoring it completely, thereby determining an agenda for the two joint working groups the Russian and U.S. presidents, meeting in Ljubljana, said they would like to be set up.  As the United States claims world hegemony, Russia, holding on to mostly old methods and forms of relationships, still can't find a worthy place in a new geopolitical environment."

 

"Treaty May Not Live To See Its 30th Anniversary"

 

Sergei Guly said in reformist Noviye Izvestiya (7/13):  "Much as Russian diplomats have tried since the arrival of the Bush team to respond to the Republicans' resolve to build MD in a way that would help Moscow avoid reacting immediately and non-verbally and possibly make the process drag on...they have achieved nothing.  The same is true of U.S. diplomats, who have pretended that nothing much is going on and that the Bush administration is merely trying different approaches to foreign policy and is ready to consider a mutually acceptable solution to the issue of missile defense....  What (other than making a formal and final statement) Bush will do to signify a clear withdrawal from the treaty is still anybody's guess.  Whatever, Moscow,

obviously, is willing to retain maximum flexibility."

 

 

"Diplomats Won't Give In To Blackmail"

 

Aleksei Germanovich quoted a Russian Defense Ministry official in reformist, business-oriented Vedomosti (7/13):  "The first cubic meter of concrete going into the foundation of a launching pad for interceptor missiles in Alaska will be taken here as the United States' formal pullout from the ABM Treaty....  Aleksandr Pikayev of the Moscow branch of the Carnegie Foundation (referring to Reuters' report on an instruction the U.S. State Department sent to U.S. missions abroad) says that the Americans will ordinarily use this kind of tactic to bring pressure to bear on a partner.  Diplomats won't give in to blackmail.  Faced with pressure, Russia will hardly make concessions now.  It doesn't wash with Putin and Co."

 

BELGIUM:  "Clear Message, No Riposte"

 

Pol Mathil observed in left-of-center Le Soir (7/17):  "Vladimir Putin and Jiang Zemin proclaimed Russian-Chinese friendship and denounced the American anti-missile shield....  A special Russian-Chinese communiquT underlines the importance of the 1972 ABM Treaty....  And it is, of course, a coincidence that it was on the eve of the Russian-Chinese summit and a few days before the G-8 in Genoa...that the United States successfully destroyed an intercontinental missile with another missile.  The message is clear: the United States has no intention whatsoever of giving up the anti-missile shield....  Faced with such a message, neither Russia nor China have a credible riposte....  Indeed, Russia is reportedly willing to give up, at least partially, the ABM Treaty in exchange for small non-strategic and regional shields."

 

FINLAND:  "Bush in A Hurry To Sink ABM Treaty"

 

Leading independent Helsingin Sanomat's editorial read (7/14):  "Washington's message to the rest of the world was not unexpected but it was abrupt:  The ABM Treaty must either be modified or the United States will unilaterally scrap it.  Bush's promise to negotiate with both Russia and U.S. Allies has been proven empty; regardless of what the outcome of the consultations may be, the United States will no longer be bound by the  ABM Treaty.  Compared to its predecessor, the Bush administration has become ostensibly impatient.  Whether it is the Kyoto Protocol, limiting small arms trading or missile defense, the United States makes its own decisions and others just have to live with them.  Washington's strategy is short-sighted and its tone is unfortunate.  U.S. hegemony is undisputed, but the United States would get the best mileage out of that by leading the way rather than dictating it.  The superpower should not behave like a schoolyard bully.  Bush still seems to lack experience, a sense of proportion and the eye for tactical finesse."

 

HUNGARY:  "Timing And Goals"

 

Brussels correspondent Oszkar Fuzes lamented in leading Nepszabadsag (7/17):  "All of a sudden it turns out that the leading missile power is afraid again.  America, this time, is afraid of not the other leading powers, not even of the nuclear-gaming between India or Pakistan, but of the missiles of  poor, unfriendly little states....  One thing is certain: MD had become a risk factor even before it was born.  As it seems now, Washington first wants to be ready with MD, and to consult about it afterwards."

 

"Missile With A Missile"

 

Senior columnist Janos Avar noted in weekend Vasarnapi Hirek (7/15):  "The Bush administration is now pushing its missile defense program, which most of the Allies view skeptically, while the Russians and the Chinese protest.  What the administration put forward in Congress last week is quite ambitious, and, in essence, it ditches the ABM Treaty."

 

 

 

 

THE NETHERLANDS:  "Bullet Hits Bullet"

 

Influential independent NRC Handelsblad had this editorial (7/16):  "The successful test is a windfall for President Bush.  However, the project raises many technical, strategic and political questions....  Bush and his advisors have repeatedly assured that the shield is not intended to intercept a large-scale attack, but it is hard to believe that the Americans will really be able to limit the shield's capacity....  The Russian warning, that the recent test rocks the entire system of arms control treaties, is rather realistic....  That is the key reason for the European reservation toward the American project, reservations which, by the way, have not been vented very often lately. The warning of new threats is taken seriously now; however, this does not mean that European states are prepared to blindly adopt the American remedy."

 

NORWAY:  "Missile Test And Missile Defense"

 

Newspaper-of-record, conservative Aftenposten held (7/17):  "Following the Americans' successful experiment...those who wish to build a defense...will undoubtedly try to increase the tempo of the plans.... But many technical problems still remain.  It will also require money, and that is done by the Congress--over which George W. Bush has lost control....  The new U.S. administration has defined its foreign and defense policies both simply and easily:  that which serves U.S. interests will be carried out.  Less important is how other countries' leaders react to that which is said and done.  One can of course win an election with such an attitude, but Washington has such a central and important place in the world politics that the political planners need to lend an ear to those who are raising the objections.  There is little to indicate a willingness to do this."

 

"The U.S. Itself Is Enough"

 

In Social Democratic Dagsavisen (7/17), Erik Sagflaat commented:  "Following the weekend's successful test...the United States is moving full speed in developing its missile shield.  This is only one of several areas where the United States demands complete freedom to do business, without consideration for treaties entered into.  The result can be a new nuclear build-up and a dramatic reduction of the nuclear threshold....  The only thing that can seriously disturb the Bush administration's solo act is the United States' Allies in Europe.  Until now, the United States could count on the Europeans to comply as soon as they were pressed upon.  Let us hope for greater European courage when President Bush comes on his second visit."

 

POLAND: "Hit To Kill"

 

Leopold Unger wrote in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (7/16):  "The attempt to destroy an intercontinental ballistic missile on the eve of the meeting in Moscow of Presidents Jiang Zemin and Vladimir Putin...carries the message:  Do not have any illusions that the United States will give up the idea of building an anti-missile umbrella....  This puts Russia in a tough situation.  What is behind its gesticulations is helplessness.  Russia cannot afford a new arms race--no matter how hard it may try, it will not match U.S. superiority."

 

SPAIN:  "Anti-Missile And Pro-Industrial Shield"

 

Conservative ABC editorialized (7/17):  "The United States is not giving up its leadership in a new security scheme....  The anti-missile shield and the billions of dollars that will be invested in its design and  production, provides a perfect alibi so that the U.S. government can continue feeding the defense industry."

 

 

 

 

 

 

"A Success...Or A Trap?"

 

Independent El Mundo concluded (7/16):  "The armament industry rubs its hands together.... 

MD could relaunch the nuclear arms race with countries like Russia and above all, China....  Is it worth the great expense to maybe find ourselves after ten years with more threats than today?"

 

"Bush Decides Alone"

 

Independent La Vanguardia wrote (7/14): "[Abrogating the ABM Treaty] could oblige [the Russian and Chinese governments] to make substantial  investments, if they want to renew their own defense systems....  The decision of the U.S. government leaves its NATO Allies in an undesirable position."

 

"Impact"

 

Left-of-Center El Pais editorialized (7/16):  "The danger is not that Bush is flouting the ABM Treaty...but that he is breaking the existing rules before replacing them with others more appropriate for the post-Cold War  world.  More than defending in a limited way against these missiles, the more logical thing would be to reinforce the international protocols to prevent the proliferation of [WMD]."

 

SWEDEN:  "Technological Success, But Political Consequences"

 

Stockholm's independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter held (7/17):  "The [MD] test last weekend can be regarded as a technological success.  On the other hand, the political consequences are more difficult to judge....  Until now the U.S. president's promise to have continuing consultations on the development of an MD system have managed to keep the opposition at a relatively low level.  The risk of a return to the arms race of the Cold War is regarded as slim. The Russians quite simply do not have the economic resources. But the U.S. plans create uncertainty and will result in counteractions.  China and Russia have renewed their strategic partnership.  They now have something that unites them. This does not make the world a more secure place."

 

"Bush's Unsafe Shield"

 

South Sweden's independent, liberal Sydsvenskan, ran an editorial (7/17):  "The successful...test...was a triumph for President Bush.  It will help his plans to build a comprehensive U.S. [MD]....  However, even if [it] is technologically feasible, it will not make the United States invulnerable to hostile attacks...and there are also risks with a self-willed American action plan.  Russian President Putin yesterday said that this might result in a new arms race....  George W. Bush has talked about 'a new concept for deterrence.'  But such a comprehensive change must not take place without a dialogue with the international community.  And this has until now not been one of President Bush's strengths."

 

SWITZERLAND:  "An Invulnerable America, Free Of Alliances"

 

Leading Italian-language Corriere del Ticino featured this piece (7/17) by foreign editor Sergio Romano: "For President Bush, the anti-missile shield has two advantages.  First, invulnerability will allow America to rid itself of many international obligations.  Second, the shield will have an impact on the U.S. economy comparable to that of nuclear and space research in the years following WWII.  It will be extremely costly, but the great leap forward for American industry in the next years will largely compensate for the sacrifices.  An invulnerable America, politically free of the constraints of alliances and economically powerful are the three objectives on which Bush will focus."

 

 

 

"One Needs To Be Skeptical"

 

Foreign editor, Marcel Huber observed in Berner Zeitung (7/16):  "Despite the successful test, the goal is far from being achieved.  The ardent wish of the United States to become an

invulnerable superpower remains an illusion.  In addition...violating the ABM Treaty with Russia undermines the credibility of the United States and makes people worry about a renewed arms race.  Therefore, one needs to be skeptical about U.S. plans to introduce a missile defense system."

 

"The Arrogance Of This White House Has No Limits"

 

In an editorial in French-language Le Matin, foreign editor Louise Parc wrote (7/16):  "In accelerating the tempo of missile defense testing, the objective of the White House is to reinforce the feeling of inevitability of the missile defense system....   The arrogance of this White House vis-a-vis the rest of the world has no limits.  This issue will be a test of the willpower of America's allies as well as of Russia and China, and of the Democrats in Congress.  Previously, the former as well as the latter  protested strongly.  Now, however, they all seem to be yielding to the American/Republican steamroller."

 

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

 

AUSTRALIA:  "Missile Defense Passes Early Test"

 

An editorial in the national, conservative Australian read (7/17):  "The success of Sunday's missile test...gave a much needed boost to George W. Bush and the Pentagon....  Moscow and Beijing believe missile defense symbolizes America's desire to impose its will on others and dismantle the consensus on arms control....  But...the arguments in favor of the missile defense system are strong....  The program reflects the need to shift away from the Cold War logic of mutually assured destruction....  Despite the success of the weekend's test, Mr Bush must proceed cautiously so as not to undermine other arms control treaties aimed at reducing nuclear arsenals."

 

CHINA:   "NMD Tests Go On Despite Opposition"

 

Jin Zeqing commented in the official, English-language China Daily (7/16):  "The test is a dangerous step which is detrimental to global arms control.  In a bid to assuage anti-NMD sentiment from the international community, Washington deliberately played down the significance of the test this time, saying it is only one of a long series of tests.  It even used a fuzzy phrase like 'bump up' rather than a very clear-cut one like 'conflict' to describe the contradictory relations between NMD and [ABM Treaty], the cornerstone of global arms control....  Washington's decision to get around or threaten to withdraw from the arms control treaty for its own gains could only encourage other countries to follow suit."

 

"The U.S. Intensifies Missile Defense System"

 

Gu Gong commented in official Beijing Morning Post (Beijing Chenbao, 7/16):  "Regardless of the mounting international opposition, the United States remains obstinate in conducting the fourth missile interception test.  This indicates that the United States is going further and further down the road of unilateralism, which will certainly arouse serious concern among the world's nations."

 

"President Bush Dislikes Three Treaties--ABM, CTBT And Kyoto"

 

Ren Yujun commented in the Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao, 7/13):  "Since it came to power, the Bush administration has been pursuing a policy of unilateralism. 

 

 

"Any international treaties that violate American interests or restrict U.S. hegemony are considered by the administration to be a thorn in its side which must be removed.  Among them, the ABM, the CTBT and the Kyoto Protocol are the three treaties most disliked by President Bush.  Besides acting against the ABM Treaty by speeding up the development of the NMD system, President Bush has gone so far as to freeze the CTBT....  International media believe that the United States' taking the initiative to sabotage the CTBT, an important cornerstone of nonproliferation, will inevitably lead other countries to begin a nuclear arms race, thus making the international situation even more unstable."  

 

"U.S. Steps Up Efforts To Develop NMD"

 

Ren Yujun wrote in official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 7/12):  "Regardless of international opposition, the United States is still obstinate in pressing ahead with the NMD and TMD....  In developing the NMD system, President Bush has 'surpassed' the Clinton administration in four aspects.  First, he has increased the budget for it; second, he has expanded the scope of it; third, he wants to upgrade the level of it; and fourth, he has obviously sped up the development of the plan."

 

HONG KONG SAR:  "Air Of Inevitability Despite Opposition"

 

The independent South China Morning Post had this editorial (7/17): "[Russia and China] have stated their opposition to U.S. plans for a [MD] system, as well as their general opposition to a unipolar world dominated by the United States and its allies.  As befitting the changed times, this opposition is muted, and there is an air of inevitability about the fact that if the United States is determined to build a [MD] system, it will go ahead and do so."

 

JAPAN:   "Russia, China Join Hands To Counter U.S."

 

Business-oriented Nihon Keizai editorialized (7/17):  "It is quite evident that Russia and China joined hands to counter U.S. domination of the post-Cold War world and its controversial plans for a missile defense shield....  The United States successfully conducted a 'hit-to-kill' missile interceptor test last Saturday, only two days before the Putin-Jiang meeting.  Russia and China are likely to try and find ways to check future U.S. moves.  Japan needs to better organize its national strategy in order not to be left at the mercy of this power game." 

 

"Successful 'Hit-to-Kill' Missile Test To Draw Strong Reactions From China, Russia"

 

Liberal Asahi observed (7/16):  "Saturday's successful 'hit-to-kill' missile interceptor test boosted the confidence of the Bush administration in its attempts to construct a new defense against ballistic missile attacks from rogue states.  It is certain that Bush will convey his firm determination to promote MD during his meeting with President Putin....  There are rising concerns that the U.S.-proposed MD program will dramatically alter the Asian security environment.  China will probably react more strongly than Russia, out of concern that the MD system will diminish China's nuclear deterrent.  In spite of concerns and negative reactions from the world community, the United States is likely to push ahead with its MD program."

 

"American Unilateralism?"

 

Liberal Asahi's Washington correspondent Sugimoto observed (7/13):  "Both Russia and U.S. Allies were shocked by Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz's statement before the [SASC] that the DOD plans to begin construction of new missile defense facilities next April , which could violate the 1972 ABM Treaty. Such work is sure to bring serious conflict with Russia. The United States is making yet another unilateral move after its negative decisions on the CTBT and the Kyoto Protocol.  The United States' unilateralist approach is certain to become a major point of contention at the upcoming G-8 summit."

 

 

SOUTH KOREA:   "The United States' Unilateralism"

 

Pro-government Hankyoreh Shinmun editorialized (7/16):  "Since the inauguration of the Bush administration, the United States' unilateralism is growing more extreme.  The United States is carrying out strategies and policies focused on maximizing the interest of its military, industry

and conservatives while disregarding the worries and criticism of other countries.  The plan to build a missile defense system in the near future clearly demonstrates its unilateralism.  The [MD] plan is likely to gain more momentum with the successful missile interception test....  We have pointed out the impropriety and danger of a missile defense system numerous times.  We have been especially anxious about the exaggerated threat of North Korea's conventional weapons and the possible and unnecessary tensions that could follow.  Such concerns were confirmed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz's recent remarks.  He said at the Senate hearing that North Korea's missiles would be the most formidable threat facing the United States if war erupts on the Korean Peninsula and called for an increased missile defense budget for developing laser weapons to deploy in the skies over the Korean Peninsula.  He not only exaggerated North Korea's threat to justify the missile defense, but also expressed the U.S. intention to include South Korea in its missile defense system."

 

VIETNAM:  "The Adventurous Move Must Be Stopped"

 

Ha Phuong wrote in Communist Party daily Nhan Dan (7/17): "Disregarding strong opposition from all parts of the world, the White House and the Pentagon announced that they will deploy NMD in 2004....  Pursuing the ambition to be the world leader through military strength, Washington is challenging the world community, causing fury worldwide and right in the United States.  The recent test of ballistic interceptor missile...is threatening all signed agreements concerning nuclear disarmament and provides absolutely no benefit for world peace and security.  This move must be stopped before it is too late."

 

SOUTH ASIA

 

PAKISTAN:  "U.S. Missile Defense System Test"

 

Second-largest, Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt held (7/17):  "Russia and China have condemned the successful testing of the U.S. [MD] system....  Presently the United States does not feel threatened by any country....  In such a situation the Russian and Chinese protests appear to be justified.  Being a superpower, America should desist from taking such steps; for it would ultimately force the world into a new nuclear arms race."

 

"U.S.-Russian Confrontation"

 

An editorial in the centrist national News read (7/16):  "Since the Bush team hinted about a unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, followed by a proposed deployment of a missile defense system in the region, it is becoming apparent that the Republicans are on the move to assert their military superiority in Asia....  This hostile interaction between two of the world's major powers has dampened all hopes of a nuclear-free world and has also shattered the vision of the much-propagated just and equitable New World Order."

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

EGYPT:   "America's Missiles"

 

Mohamed Fahmy, columnist for pro-government Al Akhbar, declared sarcastically (7/16):  "From now on, Osama Bin Laden will not be able to launch inter-continental missiles against targets in the United States.   The American administration can now sleep well after the success of its fourth missile test.... 

 

 

"Regardless of the fears of America's allies or friends...our main concern is that missiles alone will not protect Washington from retaliatory attacks and will not achieve the sought-after security.  Only justice can achieve security for the United States.  Washington's enemies used simple explosives in their attacks against U.S. interests inside the United States or in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Africa....  A balanced policy based on justice and human rights is the only way to achieve leadership for the United States."

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

CANADA:  "Summit Tension"

 

Serge Truffaut held in liberal, French-language Le Devoir (7/17):  "With political objectives in mind, the Russians intend to keep claiming that what the Americans are doing not only spells death for the ABM Treaty, but also signals the start of a new arms race--a race the Russians are much more actively involved with than one might think....  In fact, Russia is China's main arms supplier.  And China imitates Russia by selling arms and brain power to Iran.  It's enough to wonder if not everybody is violating a treaty that had been designed to establish strategic balance....  In a few days, world leaders will meet in Genoa for the G-8 and the events of recent days will be at the heart of the Bush and Putin agenda.  And while we must say that it was wrong to hasten the schedule of the anti-missile system, this must not hide the fact that the latter [Russia] is one of the main reasons for doing so."

 

##