| |
 |
Bush's dark dream
|
David Lee
US President George W Bush has stubbornly promoted his National Missile Defence (NMD) plan ever since he entered the White House. He continues to cite the potential nuclear threat of those "rogue states" to justify building the system.
However, Bush has yet to explain how this Herculean task will be accomplished. So far, the US has spent over US$50 billion in the past 20 years on the research and testing of this and similar systems. But Washington has achieved nothing except for a vague missile defence plan, which is still years away from a working NMD system.
It is astonishing to think that the USA is willing to implement an undefined framework that is less than 100 per cent effective. Even some military professionals doubt the technological feasability of the system. As we know, nuclear weapons leave no margin for error. An ineffective missile defence is worse than none at all. Washington could end up with the worst possible result: spending an enormous sum of money on a missile "shield" that provides no security. Given the limits of technology, the US eventually could choose to build a defence system that only protects its own territory.
Yet missile defence systems are unnecessary. Should the defence system be required, civilization would have deteriorated to such a hellish state that no technology could save it.
A high-level US delegation has been dispatched to convince European and Asian nations of the need to replace the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty to allow the USA to build a national missile defence. But such tours have proven to be quite unpopular: the European allies of the US oppose the system or keep silent on the issue; most Asian countries outright condemn it. The few voices in support of NMD are of little value. India's positive response, for example, is an obvious ploy to advance its ambition to be a nuclear power.
Washington's contempt for the ABM Treaty is obvious and alarming. The USA hopes to squirm out of the treaty, which by prohibiting ABM systems like NMD is designed to reduce the need for nuclear proliferation. Bush's move is outrageous and dangerous, for ABM is the cornerstone of arms control.
Just like the US rejection of the Kyoto pact for environmental protection, US presumptuousness and self-serving attitude towards international treaties betrays its "rogue" style, because Washington has always cared only about its own interests, while sparing no effort to impair the interests of countries it perceives as threats or competitors.
The Bush scheme creates more problems than it solves. NMD may start a new Cold War, for it directly poisons the relationship between the USA and Russia. It is ridiculous for the USA to push the NMD plan under the guise of "honourable intentions". Russia has shown its consistent, and adamant opposition to this alleged "protective umbrella", while at the same time warning of its destabilizing effect.
In tit-for-tat circle, Russia could suspend compliance with important arms-control agreements, including the START treaties. It could also suspend co-operation on non-proliferation programmes. Russia has threatened to put multiple warheads back on their missiles to counteract US missile defences, and could terminate the Nunn-Lugar programme, a joint US-Russian effort to dispose of Russian nuclear materials so they don't end up in the wrong hands.
Bush's commitment to collaborating with Moscow on a "new framework" for nuclear stability is just a token gesture, since it is unclear how far he will go to bring Russia along.
The push toward NMD would divide the NATO alliance and complicate relationship with some other countries, for the US unleashed and accelerated nuclear technology and deployment could weaken their security protective capability. Such uneasiness could easily open the door to a new round of arms race, undermine those achievements made in the field of arms control. In particular, some European countries harbour deep skepticism of the recent US tour, which took place at a time when the rifts between the US and its European NATO allies run deep over Balkan peacekeeping operations and a future European rapid reaction force.
US national missile defence, despite its limited effectiveness, will be enormously expensive. The cost of the minimal national missile defence currently under development is estimated at US$60 billion. The "multi-layered" defences Bush proposes, which are supported by some administration officials, would build redundant defences to increase the system's overall effectiveness. But this will cost over US$100 billion. Protecting US allies or deploying space-based defences could drive up the total costs several-fold.
Let us rethink the US regional missile defence system--Theatre Missile Defence (TMD). Bush is pushing its TMD plan to Asian countries like Japan and the Republic of Korea. It would strengthen US military alliances in Asia beyond legitimate defence needs, especially US-Japan security ties. TMD poses a direct threat to Asia's peace and stability.
|
|
|
|
