Sat, Jul 22, 2000 page8

• Missile defense down but not dead

  • By Bruce Dickson
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Why are so many US congressmen infatuated with the idea of missile defense? Despite the many technical, financial, and political challenges, proponents of building a national missile defense system and a theater missile defense system for East Asia are determined to push ahead, regardless of the cost to the US budget and reputation. The embarrassing failure of the most recent test may give President Bill Clinton a sound reason to postpone a decision to rapidly develop and deploy a hypothetical missile shield. But the issue is unlikely to end with his administration. The question is why?

  The idea of a national missile defense first gained prominence during the Reagan Administration and was derisively referred to as "Star Wars" by those opposed to it. Reagan's original notion involved an extensive space-based system able to detect and shoot down incoming ballistic missiles.

  The plan was eventually scaled back due to technical problems and mounting budget estimates. The end of the Cold War also eliminated the threat of nuclear attack from the Soviet Union, further undermining enthusiasm for the project. But like many Pentagon projects, the missile defense concept did not die just because it was expensive, infeasible and unnecessary. It was simply reinvented.

  The plan now under consideration allegedly would protect the US from "rogue states," such as North Korea and Iran. A controversial intelligence report claimed that these countries will be able to develop ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US by 2005.

  Last year, Congress passed a resolution that binds the administration to build a missile defense as soon as it is technically possible. Clinton is expected to make a decision within the next few months, although in light of the recent failed experiment he may defer a decision until a new administration comes into office. George W. Bush is a strong advocate of missile defense, and would like to build one even larger than the one Clinton is considering. Al Gore supports the idea, but without much enthusiasm.

  Few people believe that the threat from "rogue states" alone warrants such a system. Critics, especially those outside the US, argue that it is US arrogance that is driving the concept. NATO countries are concerned that the US is determined to proceed over their objections. There is no question that building a national missile defense violates the ABM treaty with Russia, but proponents of NMD don't seem to care. They simply want to revise the treaty, although Russia has repeatedly said it is unwilling to do so.

  Until quite recently, few people in government seemed to be aware of China's objections to NMD, which if anything are more deeply felt than Russia's. Clinton traveled to Russia and Europe to try to allay their fears and win their support, but without success. He has not, however, made such a personal appeal to China. The most recent missile test took place while a US arms control and non-proliferation team was in Beijing for the first discussions since China broke off talks after the embassy bombing last year.

  The timing of the test and the visit probably were not intentional. But that just demonstrates how little China's objections matter. It is difficult to imagine the test occurring in the context of a high level visit with Russian or NATO officials. The leader of the US delegation also acknowledged the likelihood that Taiwan would be allowed to acquire missile defense technology. Defense Secretary William Cohen repeated that message in his trip to China. It is no wonder that China is suspicious that missile defense is not aimed at rogue states but at China.

  If the US proceeds with NMD, it will set a poor example for China to follow. Isn't it hypocritical to demand that Beijing abide by international norms and obligations when Washington is willing to break its treaty obligations and ignore the views of other major countries, including other members of NATO as well as Russia and China?

  Earlier this year, a high level US official discounted China's concerns over NMD by arguing that it would lead China to build additional missiles capable of overwhelming the missile shield. This was supposed to show that the shield is not aimed at China. Is it really in US interests to have China expand its ballistic arsenal to such an extent? Encouraging China to build up its weapons in this way is foolhardy. It is a worst case scenario that would have dangerous and unwanted ripple effects throughout the Asia-Pacific region. It would simply give India a reason to build more of its own missiles to counter China's build-up, and then give Pakistan a reason to counter India. An arms race in Asia is not in US interests.

  More importantly, such an extensive build-up of China's strategic weapons would lead to further arguments in the US that China has hostile intentions, triggering another round of accusations that have soured US-China relations in recent years. If the US hopes to improve cooperation with China on issues concerning trade, non-proliferation, human rights, Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula and a host of other issues, moving forward on missile defense while ignoring Chinese opposition (and the opposition of Russian and NATO allies), it needs to rethink its commitment to missile defense.

  If the US proceeds with its plans to build MND, it may be able to protect itself from an unlikely attack from "rogue states." But at the same time, it will severely damage relations with many of its major international partners, making them unlikely to cooperate with the US on other important military, economic and political issues. The result would be a more hostile international environment for the US, which clearly is not in US interests. Why is this so hard for its proponents to see?

  Bruce Dickson is the Director of the Sigur Center for Asian Studies at The George Washington University in Washington, DC.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Palmeiras hopes for club cup win

  • 2

    Magnitude 6.4 earthquake hits Hualien County

  • 3

    Hegseth outlines Chinese threat

  • 4

    Taiwan to see nine extended holidays in 2026

  • 5

    Pegatron ranks last in Greenpeace report