Archives

by Peter Zheutlin, JD & John O Pastore, MD

Having promised, during the campaign and in his inaugural address, to conduct a humble, not arrogant, foreign policy, George W Bush promptly dispatched Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Munich [in May 2001] to tell America's European allies (and, not incidentally, Russia and China) that regardless of their deep concerns, the US would move swiftly to deploy a national missile defence system (NMD). Nations with peaceful intentions, said Rumsfeld, have nothing to fear from a missile shield.

But, perhaps it's US intentions that have everyone else on edge. Indeed, if you read the glossy 1997 booklet published by the United States Space Command called Vision for 2020. you might be on edge, too. Vision for 2020 is filled with Orwellian jargon such as this little pearl - 'the emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea, and air superiority, will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance' - that leaves no doubt that NMD is part of a larger US plan to dominate space for military purposes.

Right up front, Vision for 2020 proclaims: 'US Space Command - dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment.

Integrating Space Forces into war fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict'. And USSPACECOM, as they call themselves, clearly sees NMD as essential to this warfighting mission.

'Global engagement, says USSPACECOM in more military-speak, 'is the application of precision force from, to, and through space. USSPACECOM will have a greatly expanded role as an active warfighter in the years ahead as the combatant command responsible for National Missile Defence (NMD) and space force application.'

Even though NMD tests thus far have failed spectacularly, the critical question is not whether NMD might someday be technically feasible, but whether deployment of NMD will increase or decrease the risk of nuclear war. NMD will increase the risk of nuclear war for several reasons.

First, NMD increases Russian and Chinese insecurity. The Russians in particular are not buying assurances that NMD will remain a limited system, and USSPACECOM's Vision for 2020 undercuts assertions that NMD would be a purely defensive deployment.

Russia's fear is that NMD could eventually neutralise a sizable portion of Russia's nuclear deterrent, making Russia vulnerable to a US first strike.

Under such circumstances Russia would be loathe to agree to further reductions in its nuclear arsenal and would be under enormous pressure, in fact, to do just the opposite.

This, in turn, undercuts another highly desirable goal reportedly under serious consideration by the Bush Administration: unilateral reductions in the US nuclear arsenal by thousands of warheads.

If NMD sparks a Russian and/or Chinese nuclear weapons build-up, where will the domestic political support for US reductions come from? In short, NMD could well be the first shot fired in a new nuclear arms race.

Second, deployment of NMD threatens to unravel decades of painstaking efforts to restrain the nuclear arms race through a web of treaties at a time when building on that progress is eminently possible.

Third, to the extent there are so-called 'rogue states' developing a ballistic missile capability with the intention of attacking the US (North Korea and Iran are most often mentioned), NMD is a stimulus to step up and expand such efforts. In the unique calculus of nuclear weaponry, where a single warhead can kill millions and injure millions more, just a little bit of offence trumps defence.

US allies who have profound and justifiable concerns about NMD have options open to them beyond applying diplomatic and political pressure on the Bush Administration.

Canada, Norway, Australia, Denmark, Greenland, and the UK, all of which may be asked to provide a base for NMD-related facilities, could refuse.

These countries, and others, may find themselves under enormous pressure from the US to participate in NMD and it will, no doubt, take enormous political will to resist.

But, if the President is serous about having a humble foreign policy, he cannot afford to run roughshod over the concerns of America's most important allies, or dismiss those of its potential adversaries.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager