The ABM Stumbling Block Still Lies Between Moscow and Washington
by NARODNA ARMIYA commentator Serhiy Zhurets
Kiev NARODNA ARMIYA
in Ukrainian, 2 Jun 95 p
3
[FBIS Translated Text] The idea inherent in the ABM Treaty, limiting anti-missile defensive systems, that was signed between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1972 has no less significance for guaranteeing security than the publicly well-known START I and START II treaties cutting back strategic offensive arms. America and the Soviet Union agreed not to expand the shield of anti- missile defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles across the entire territory of their countries, but rather to station those anti-missile systems only in certain regions, leaving the rest of the country almost unprotected against nuclear missile attack. It was expected that neither side would dare to launch a nuclear conflict under such circumstances. The parameters and quantity of the missiles that could be employed in creating systems of anti-missile defense were also clearly spelled out.
The ABM-72 Treaty, however, does not prohibit the development of systems to protect the territory of those countries against attack by less powerful missiles, for example those that were employed en masse by Iraq in the war with Kuwait. Representatives of the Clinton administration have been negotiating with Russia, as well as with Ukraine and Belarus, for a long time on which indicators should be used to delineate systems of defense that are created in accordance with the 1972 treaty from other systems for territorial anti-missile defense, the development of which the Republican majority in the American Senate has deemed to be extremely necessary for the security of the United States--particularly taking into account the existence of threats from countries with unstable political regimes. Moscow in turn was not long in declaring that if Washington were to begin the creation of too powerful a system of territorial anti-missile defense, it would be regarded as a violation of the 1972 ABM Treaty, with all of the negative consequences in both the diplomatic and the military realms.
The recent summit meeting between Moscow and Washington was expected to put an end to this issue. Those expectations were justified to a certain extent, taking into account the signing of the declaration of the principles for breakdown among systems of anti-missile defense, even though some observers regard this declaration as a concession to Moscow that makes it possible to restrict the technical capabilities of the new systems to the greatest extent. They can moreover be developed only with the consent of Moscow.
It is true that the declaration of principles for the breakdown of systems of anti-missile defense, as specialists note, will require technical refinement all the same. The Armed Forces of Russia and the United States are planning to conduct joint exercises pertaining to means of anti- missile defense for that very purpose in 1997; they are to verify the conformity of the American proposals for the creation of a new system of territorial defense using defensive missiles to the provisions of the 1972 ABM Treaty. The American Patriot anti-missile defensive system and the Russian S-300 anti-missile system are planned to be active in those exercises.
Specialists emphasize, however, that the exercises will be preceded by presidential elections in both countries, and the results of those could affect the attitude of both countries toward the requirements of the ABM Treaty. It should also be emphasized that any worsening of this issue could have an effect on Ukraine, where a series of missile-attack warning stations are working on Russian requirements since the signing of the treaty for a unified system of air defense for the CIS countries.
THIS REPORT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL.
COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
