News Analysis: NMD: A Move to Endanger World Peace, Security
By Tang Shuifu
The new U.S. administration, in defiance of worldwide opposition, is
obstinate in its insistence on continuing to develop and deploy the
controversial National Missile Defense (NMD) system.
Such a move, analysts say, will not only spark a new arms race and create a
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but will also threaten world
peace and security in the 21st century.
After the failure of two of three NMD tests, former President Bill Clinton
decided on September 1 last year to leave a final decision on NMD deployment
to his successor.
However, immediately after assuming office on January 20, President George
W. Bush announced he would honor a campaign pledge to deploy the NMD system.
The proposed NMD, a replica of the "Star Wars" project, formulated during
the Reagan administration in 1980s, is designed to provide protection for
all 50 U.S. states from ballistic missile attacks coming from so-called
"countries of concern," such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK) and Iran, which the United States claims are developing long-range
ballistic missiles.
Compared with the previous government's plan, the Bush administration stand
on NMD, which is projected to cost about 60 billion U.S. dollars, is more
aggressive and risky.
Clinton said the NMD shield would cover 50 states. But Bush claims the
system will not only protect the U.S. territory, but also American allies.
Besides, Bush also plans to enlarge the land-based NMD to the sea-based and
space-based system.
Meanwhile, Clinton stressed that in making the NMD deployment decision, the
United States should take into account the cost, the technical feasibility,
the extent of the missile threat, and the effect on arms control agreements.
However, the Bush administration not only insists NMD should be deployed as
soon as the system proves workable, but also warns that if Russia does not
agree to revise the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, signed by the
United States and the former Soviet Union in 1972, Washington will withdraw
from the treaty.
The United States, the country armed with the world's most powerful and
advanced nuclear and conventional arsenal, has repeatedly claimed that NMD
is intended to counter the increasing threats posed by missile
proliferation. To say the least, the United States has over-exaggerated the
threats of missiles from "countries of concern."
Judging from the economic and technological weaknesses of these countries,
analysts say it is difficult to imagine these countries developing, much
less deploying, missiles capable of reaching the U.S. territory in the
foreseeable future.
The NMD program is opposed by many countries in the world, including Russia
and China. Some experts say the defense system, part of the U.S. global
military strategy, principally targets Russia and China. The United States,
in pursuit of its absolute superiority as the only superpower in the world,
desires to use the system to deprive Russia and China as well as other
countries of a nuclear deterrent capability.
At the same time, America's allies, including France, Germany, Italy and
Canada, have also rejected NMD, saying that instead of promoting security
and stemming the spread of nuclear weapons, the system will threaten the
security and stimulate nuclear proliferation.
Even Britain, the best friend of the United States in Europe, seems unsure.
British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said "there is no perception" in
Britain of a threat that warrants such a missile defense shield.
The United Nations Assembly has also passed a resolution on safeguarding the
ABM Treaty twice in succession.
The development, deployment and transfer of anti-missile systems with
potential strategic defense capabilities cannot ensure security or prevent
missile proliferation. Such an action, on the contrary, will damage security
and boost the spread of missiles; not even mentioning it is in violation of
the ABM Treaty.
The ABM Treaty has served as a cornerstone of global strategic balance and
stability since it was concluded. Even today, the treaty still provides a
security framework for multilateral nuclear disarmament and for further
bilateral reductions of nuclear arsenals by the United States and Russia.
The strategic significance of the treaty goes far beyond the scope of the
U.S.-Russia bilateral relationship. If, however, the treaty is amended, as
requested by the United States, it would certainly lose all its
significance, and global strategic balance and stability would be the
victim.
On February 6, the Pentagon announced it would conduct the fourth test of
the NMD system in May or June. The Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization may also test a new booster for NMD as early as March. All
signs indicate that the United States has accelerated its development and
testing of the NMD system.
Observers say once NMD is deployed, it could further strengthen the U.S.
tendency towards unilateralism and the tendency to use or threaten to use
force. This will not only create more instability in the world, but also may
start an arms race in outer space, and may also extend the arms race from
offensive to defensive weapons.
It will be unrealistic to expect other countries to sit on their hands while
the United States develops NMD. They will certainly take all sorts of
counter measures to safeguard their national security.
History has shown that security is both mutual and relative. Real security
can only be achieved if a country builds its security on the basis of common
security for all.
