#2
BBC Monitoring
Russia may need extra guarantees over US missile plans
- newspaper
Source: Krasnaya Zvezda, Moscow, in Russian 15 Nov 01
According to Russian newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda, the US national missile defence programme is a process which can hardly be reversed. As the Russian-US dialogue on the future of the ABM Treaty continues, Russia may make some concessions to the USA in return for additional security guarantees, the newspaper says. The following is an excerpt from the report, published on 15 November. Subheadings have been inserted editorially:
Building confidence between the two countries to ensure a stable model of strategic stability is the primary objective of the Russian-American summit taking place in the United States. In emphasizing this, both sides expressed their intention to have a frank discussion on the full set of problems in the two countries' relations, including that of the 1972 ABM Treaty.
It is common knowledge that the US administration considers this treaty to be a vestige of the past, a relic of the Cold War, and is expressing intentions to abandon it. Such unflattering assessments of the treaty are explained rather simply - the United States has decided to deploy a national missile defence [NMD] system. It believes it simply needs this to ensure its security, but the 1972 Treaty interferes with doing this, since it doesn't allow the development, testing, or stationing of such a system. Not wishing to give up its plans, Washington on the one hand is striving to gain consent from our country for a mutual abandonment of the ABM Treaty, and on the other hand it already has begun creating an NMD system...
Not all NMD tests go without a glitch
Although the tests were declared successful, immediately following them the US Defence Department ballistic missile defence office submitted requests to a group of firms for the development of alternative versions of the missile. It also should be emphasized that the flight tests of the experimental model of the missile were carried out four times at the missile defence range for intercepting a warhead. Of these, the first and last tests were acknowledged as successful. But independent experts are even casting doubt on them, since, according to the assertion of US Defence Department representatives, the telemetry allegedly was lost.
The latest flight test of an interceptor missile, planned for the middle of this past October, was postponed until late November or early December. It is typical that in terms of its scenario it is a simplified analogue of the previous "successful" experiment. It also is noteworthy that in September preliminary specifications again were issued to developer firms for a competitive development of this missile, which is a return to the previous research and development stage. In this connection the time period previously announced by the Americans for deploying the first provisionally operational interceptor missile complex in Alaska (2004-2006) appears to many specialists to be unlikely. They also believe that programme successes being advertised by the Pentagon leadership largely are propagandistic in nature and are serving as the foundation for the allocation of additional large targeted appropriations by the US Congress for further work to create an NMD system...
It already has been said repeatedly that work being done in the United States to create an NMD system in violation of the ABM Treaty, let alone the wrecking of this agreement, can blow up strategic stability, above all because there is a direct connection between offensive and defensive arms. The appearance of one country's powerful defensive shield forces other countries that are striving for equal security to create those weapons which still would penetrate this shield. And it's no accident that even US NATO allies France and Great Britain have a negative attitude towards Washington's plans, since their implementation leads to a depreciation of these countries' nuclear potentials. In other words, US creation of an NMD system will lend impetus to a renewal of the arms race and to the proliferation of missiles and missile technologies.
NMD cannot offer total protection
But if we look at those forces which cannot adequately respond to the US challenge, but which nurture evil designs against the United States, they will attempt to find the simplest and most treacherous methods of implementing them. The tragic events of 11 September are clear proof of that: even the most sophisticated missile defence system would have been unable to prevent this terrorist attack. And how about that same bioterrorism? It's generally difficult to fight.
Rejection of the ABM Treaty would do serious damage today to international security as a whole. Instability and uncertainty as to the world community's capability to preserve peace, prevent conflicts at various levels and fight international terrorism would intensify.
This is why Russia continues to regard the ABM Treaty as the cornerstone of international security and strategic stability. At the same time, this does not at all mean, as the Russian President declared on the eve of his visit to the United States, that Moscow "doesn't acknowledge the US administration's legitimate concerns about the future system of international security." In the words of its leader, Russia is prepared for compromises and "is prepared to discuss parameters of the ABM Treaty, but specific parameters are necessary." It must be known what "specifically the US administration has planned to change."
Russia may need additional guarantees
The statement about the possibility of compromise gave rise to literally a torrent of various comments by specialists and experts. The majority of them arrive at the opinion that this might mean Russia's consent to the US conduct of tests of individual elements of the NMD system, with preservation of the ABM Treaty. But as an answering step, it expects specific guarantees of its security from Washington. Above all this means US readiness to undertake a further reduction in offensive arms. And President Bush already gave that consent during the first round of talks held at the Russian-American summit meeting. Experts believe that US support in creating new mechanisms of cooperation between Russia and NATO must be another aspect of these guarantees. Vladimir Putin noted on the eve of and right during the visit that our country must be given the opportunity of joint decision making and accomplishment of coordinated actions with the Alliance in the security area.
And lastly, having begun work on the NMD system, Washington has set in motion a process that now is difficult to stop. Since that is so, it should be turned onto safe paths, i.e., the need has matured to create a new system of international security on a new treaty-law basis and on a broader level. And here the United Nations unquestionably comes to the foreground. It is this organization of the world community that is called upon to look for and find answers to global challenges to mankind. And therefore it's up to it, as they say. It's quite obvious, however, that it will take much time to create a new system, and during this period we have to preserve the existing treaty-law field, where the ABM Treaty plays the primary role.
Next Article