It is a bit surprising that Canada's national business newspaper should
publish this. Is there much discussion of the NMD system in the US by the
left?
The system seems bound to unravel all the treaties that have mitigated the
build up of arsenals in Russia and will cerainly cause China to increase
arms production.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
The Globe and Mail Monday, January 15, 2001
The final frontier
There's more than meets the eye to the
controversial U.S. scheme, says scientist
John Valleau. Much, much more
By John Valleau
Incoming U.S. president George W. Bush and his nominee as secretary of
state, Colin Powell, are strong supporters of the National Missile Defence
project -- basically a scaled-down version of the "Star Wars" scheme that
was proposed, and discredited, in the Reagan years. The purpose of the
project is claimed to be the ability to intercept, in space, a small number
of missiles launched against the United States. But the controversial plan
may be more sinister than we could imagine, and Canada must make every
effort to stop it.
The missile defence proposal poses a giant conundrum, because the
costs, financial and strategic, appear much greater than any benefits to the
United States.
If, as its proponents say, the system would be capable only of
intercepting a few attacking missiles, the scheme offers no defence from an
assault by any serious antagonist. The costs, on the other hand, are
massive, not only in consuming billions of dollars by itself, but in
fuelling a new arms race. Russia and China both interpret the U.S. plan as
part of the development of a nuclear "first-strike" capability. They,
therefore, make it clear that, if it goes ahead, they will feel obliged to
modernize their arsenals. This would mean an end to nuclear disarmament.
So why would the United States contemplate accepting these risks for
such meagre and dubious benefits? What can be driving the the missile
defence project?
The answer may lie in a little-known plan for the United State to
dominate and colonize outer space. This sounds absurd and paranoid, but it
is all laid out in the mission statements of the United States Space
Command. The basic document, Vision for 2020, is already five years old.
(This, and the later Long Range Plan fleshing out the "vision," are publicly
available on the Web, at http://www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace. Copies can be
found also on the Project Ploughshares Web site, http://www.ploughshares.ca.
The Space Command describes its role as "dominating the space dimension of
military operations to protect U.S. interests and investment [and]
integrating Space Forces into war-fighting capabilities across the full
spectrum of conflict."
This is a clear plan to militarize space with U.S. weapons, and to seek
the ability to "deny others the use of space." The report is adorned with
pictures of targets on Earth being zapped by such weapons. All this, while
the United States is a signatory of the Outer Space Treaty, which aims at
preventing the weaponization of outer space.
The connection to colonialism is also pretty explicit: "As sea commerce
advanced in the 18th and 19th centuries, nations built navies to project
power and protect and enhance their commercial interests. Similarly, during
the westward expansion of the continental United States, military outposts
and the cavalry emerged to protect our wagon trains, settlements and
railroads. . . . The emergence of space power follows . . . these models."
It is, at first, hard to believe that this horrifying plan is really
U.S. policy, but there has been no repudiation of the published intentions
by the U.S. administration, and the Space Command continues to be handsomely
financed.
How does this explain the missile defence proposal? First of all, the
Space Command is the responsible agency directing the defence project, and
the "vision" makes it clear that it foresees that "NMD will evolve into a
mix of ground and space sensors and weapons." So the limited missile defence
that has been discussed publicly is not at all what is actually in mind.
Then, to put the Space Command plans in place, the United States will
have to abrogate, or ignore, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and probably
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well, while violating at least the
spirit of the Outer Space Treaty and the Environmental Modification
Techniques protocol.
The nations of the world would never accept the colonial status implied
by this U.S. plan, but -- and this is where the missile defence scheme comes
in -- they might be persuaded to accept the dismemberment of these treaties,
if they only see the missile defences as a relatively benign, small-scale
defence system, as it is portrayed.
What is Canada's responsibility in the face of this? The United States
has not yet made a firm decision to proceed with deployment of its missile
defences. Statements by Mr. Bush imply his approval, but there remains some
considerable internal resistance, and the United States remains somewhat
sensitive to the international reactions.
Russia and China have given sharp warning of their response to any
deployed missile defences -- rearmament. The nations of Europe have also
expressed their opposition in forthright terms. But Canada has yet to speak.
Lloyd Axworthy, when minister of Foreign Affairs, did make a statement
giving strong reasons for opposing it, and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in
his recent joint statement with Russian President Vladimir Putin, appears to
concur that the U.S.-Russian Anti-Ballistic-Missile treaty must be
paramount.
But Canada must speak out clearly. The United States is desperately
seeking to legitimize the scheme by gaining its acceptance by a respected
nation, and is hoping we might play that role. Furthermore, Canada cannot
remain neutral, because, if it is silent, it risks being involved,
willy-nilly, through its membership in NORAD.
So it is urgent that the Canadian government speak out now, opposing
the missile defence project. We have nothing to gain from the plan and a lot
to lose: the hope of abolishing nuclear weapons, the hope of an outer space
without weapons, the respect of the international community.
Our rejection would give strong support to missile defence critics in
the U.S., and it could well help to turn the tide.
John Valleau is a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, in the
chemical-physics theory group of the Chemistry Department. He is also a
member of the board and of the executive of Science for Peace.
