George W. Bush and his Republican praetorian guard of hard-liners (many of whom, for no other reason than cowardice, ducked the call to duty in Vietnam) have put Al Gore needlessly on the defensive on the issue of national missile defense. Their intent, by hook or by crook, is to make Gore look weak on defense, even if it means unilaterally abrogating a solemn international treaty with Russia and risking driving emerging Russia back into its Cold War bunker.
Missile defense is predicated on the increasingly nonsensical notion that a "rogue state" (though these words are no longer politically correct, according to no less an authority than Madeleine Albright) will fire nuclear-tipped missiles into Alaska and even northern California and seize a political advantage that its suitcase nuclear bomb deposited in a left-luggage locker in New York's Grand Central Station could not. No wonder that even the ever-faithful British, who have made a habit of never querying US defense issues, have started to air their doubts.
Now, by one of those quirks of journalistic fate, I have been handed a report that has been considered at the highest levels of the Pentagon. The report makes it clear that there is an alternative that would mean that it was quite unnecessary either to need to break international law or alienate Russia, and this alternative has the added bonus that it would not neutralize China's strategic retaliatory nuclear capability and thus would not work indirectly to trigger a dangerously destabilizing nuclear arms race between China and India.
Putin's proposal
The reason, perhaps, that this report has been kept from out-loud discussion is that it is astonishingly similar to the proposal touted recently by the Russian president Vladimir Putin.
In four words it is a system of "Airborne Boost-Phase Defense" or, in common parlance, shooting down missiles as they take off rather than waiting for them to come near to landing. Rocket boosters are easy both to detect and to track. They are more vulnerable and easier to destroy than incoming warheads, and the entire payload -- warheads and decoys -- can be downed with a single shot. Added to that, such a defense system need only cover the enemy's territory rather than the wide expanse of territory at home that might be threatened. Moreover, the Pentagon has already admitted that it will have difficulty distinguishing between decoys and an actual incoming missile.
But with this boost-phase defense, such misleading counter measures would be much more difficult if not impossible. However, such a system is only effective against small states like North Korea or Iraq, not against big continental countries like Russia and China with their intercontinental ballistic missile forces. Thus it is not going to upset the status quo, a vital political consideration for those who value big power strategic stability.
How does it work? It is, according to these papers before me, based on a high-speed rocket making use of a small "kinetic-kill vehicle" for a payload. This homes in on the booster's infra-red signature. For dealing with the supposed coming threat from North Korea these airborne interceptor launch platforms could be located over international waters in the Sea of Japan.
They can be launched from fighter aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles. Or they could be a high-powered laser carried aboard a Boeing 747-400F.
Capitulation
There are 80 pages of scientific and strategic justification for this scheme, which a layman like me peruses with leaden eyes. But certain items stand out -- it is more likely to work than the so far unproven national missile defense system to be based in Alaska. Second, it is very much cheaper. Third, it avoids adverse Russian or Chinese reactions which could undermine US security in the long term. This raises the political question: why has the Clinton Administration attempted to portray thinking of this kind as purely Russian-inspired when its very own advisors are hard at work on a similar idea? Why also has the Clinton administration not encouraged public debate, as it has with its spend-thrift, dangerously destabilizing and, more than likely, unworkable Alaskan scheme?
Beyond that one can also ask why, when Clinton has achieved so much with his creative diplomacy with North Korea, when the UN-led disarmament programme in Iraq seems in retrospect to have been thoroughly effective and when every US general knows full well the US's best defense against the "rogue states" is its retaliatory capability, does the Clinton Administration persist in tying itself publicly to the pursuit of its national missile defense scheme?
There is indeed only one answer -- that, for too long, Mr Clinton has run scared before the old Cold War warriors who have now arranged themselves anew around the Republican presidential candidate. The Clinton Administration, having no defense of its own, has capitulated before the right's offence. No administration since the onset of the Cold War has done so little for arms control. The Clinton Administration enters its final days having passed up the great historic opportunity to engage in really effective nuclear disarmament with its erstwhile enemy, Russia, despite the encouragement from a range of informed opinion from a former secretary of defense to a former head of US nuclear strategic forces. It is a mistake that is not much less than a war crime. That Clinton should compound this dreadful record by conniving in obfuscating the choices before the American people in providing for their defense -- albeit in this case, most likely, only an imaginary threat -- is beyond all reason. It is simply cowardice and in another age Clinton would have been taken out and shot.
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry