|
|
|
WEB SPACE kindly donated by
|
The following is the paper of a Russian diplomat regarding a Russian response to the proposed US National Missile Defence, which was presented at the ISODARCO Summer School, held in Italy in August 2000. ISODARCO (International School on Disarmament and Research on Conflicts) was founded in 1966 and has since held 21 Summer courses, 13 Winter courses, 6 seminars in Beijing, and one each in Taipei and Jordan - it is the teaching arm of Pugwash and the Italian Pugwash group. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr.
Evgeny Bazhanov American National Missile Defence Plans and Prospects of International SecurityA View from RussiaThere is hardly any international or domestic issue on which a consensus exists in the present-day Russia. The American national missile defence (NMD) plans are a notable exception. Virtually all politically active Russians strongly oppose deployment of a NMD system by the United States. Views differ only on the way of how to respond to the Washington's intention. What are the reasons for the Russia's negative reaction to the NMD system prospects? First of all, Russia cannot accept American explanations that the NMD’s purpose is to protect all U.S. territory against limited ballistic missile attacks launched by "rogue" opponents as well as an accidental or unauthorized missile launch from any source. None of the alleged "rogues" (North Korea, Iran and Iraq) have actually initiated deployment of ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States. The principle suspect, North Korea (DPRK), has held only two tests of a missile incapable of delivering even a very small payload to the U.S. territory. Moreover, the DPRK has announced an indefinite moratorium on further tests and has expressed a willingness to eliminate its ballistic missile program in exchange for technological aid in the peaceful space exploration. Even if North Korea does continue its military missile program, it will be able to acquire a veritable Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) no sooner than by 2010-2015. By that time the DPRK will hardly exist in its current form, it will undergo reforms, signs of which are already starting to emerge. It is equally obvious to the Russian observers that North Korean leaders are not suicidal maniacs who are prepared to attack the United States and be immediately obliterated by the American missile response. Those leaders in Pyongyang have been slow in introducing even economic reforms fearing that changes may undermine their power. Pyongyang authorities realise that an attack on the U.S. or American allies will deprive them of not only power, but of their very lives. Let's, however, take an extreme case and presume that North Korea will indefinitely remain an American adversary determined to inflict damage on the U.S. Will it rely on ultra-expensive, detectable, and vulnerable ICBMs? Of course, not. Terrorist attacks from inside the United States will be much easier, cheaper, and harder to detect. Similar arguments can be advanced concerning other "rogues" like Iran or Iraq. So the question remains: why is Washington willing to spend over $50 billion against threats which don't yet exist and will probably never exist in the form envisaged today by American policy-planners and makers? The Russian answer to this question is that the NMD system has been promoted by the powerful American military-industrial complex. The complex which employs over 3 million people obviously wants to have big state orders to stay afloat, to have money and influence. To achieve these goals it has to create enemies, and it successfully does so. Not everybody in America agrees with the arguments of the military-industrial complex. Even in the White House there are doubts about the NMD system. Yet, the logic of domestic politics, especially during the presidential election campaign, makes both Republicans and Democrats supportive of the ideas, which sound patriotic and logical to many voters. What is after all so bad about ensuring protection of the nation and its population, simultaneously providing jobs to highly qualified scientists, technicians, and workers? We, in Russia, also cannot dismiss an external dimension of the American drive to create a NMD system. U.S. officials have repeatedly emphasised that the planned NMD system is not intended to threaten Russia's nuclear deterrent, it will not be able to counter a Russian attack and would be easily overwhelmed by the sheer number of missiles in the Russian arsenal. The question though arises with Russians: if the purpose of the NMD system is to protect the United States from North Korean missiles, why is the world's most advanced tracking and imaging radar about to go online at the northern tip of Norway instead of northern Japan? That radar in Norway is only 40 miles from the Russian border and it is capable of collecting detailed radar images of Russian warheads and decoys, providing the United States with a very precise radar fingerprint. There are other questions which invariably come to the minds of Russian strategic planners. Americans explain that they intend to have only 250 interceptors, which is not enough to stop thousands of Russian missiles. But what if the U.S. delivers the first strike on Russia's nuclear forces and knocks out most of our ICBMs and SLBM's? Then, Russian generals say, 250 NMD interceptors will affect Russia's ability to launch a retaliatory attack. Besides, Moscow cannot be confident that in the future Washington will not increase the number of NMD interceptors. In the beginning Americans talked about 100 NMD interceptors, now they want to have 250. In addition the United States already plans to deploy several hundred navy theatre wide interceptors, which could be integrated into the NMD system. T here is no doubt that, if the U.S. moves forward with its planned NMD deployment, there will be strong pressures to upgrade and expand the system. Thus, having achieved a huge strategic superiority, the United States will be in a position to impose their own rules of behaviour vis-a-vis Russia and the entire world. Even if this purpose does not exist now the habit to behave disregarding interests and opinions of weaker states and to dominate over them will gradually develop. Such a conclusion is drawn by the Russians on the basis of past and most recent experiences. Talking about historical experiences one should note that Moscow still remembers how the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 came about. Its initiator was Washington insisting that the two superpowers had to stop attempts to fully protect national territories from a nuclear attack. The argument was the following: if you achieve this defensive goal then you might be tempted to a first strike against your opponent. It was hard for Moscow to accept the logic since the USSR had suffered so much in the World War II as a result of German bombings. It seemed absolutely natural for Soviet leaders to make sure that our cities and people would not suffer the same fate again. Nevertheless, the Kremlin agreed to sign the ABM Treaty and then discuss limitations on offensive strategic weapons. The essence of the Treaty was to permit one ABM system to be deployed for defence of one individual region of each country. The Treaty purposely made the United States and the Soviet Union vulnerable to mutual missile attacks. Now Americans have completely changed their mind and state that they don’t want to remain vulnerable any more. And they say to us that we should not worry since Washington will do no harm to Russia. Our political and military circles are not reassured by such promises after recent happenings in Iraq and in the Balkans. Let me remind you that the United States bombed Iraq without a mandate from the United Nations and disregarding Russian opposition. The case of Kosovo is even more significant. Yugoslavia was bombed for alleged human rights violations inside its own territory. And again it was done without a U.N. sanction, despite a strong opposition and in clear violation of international provisions. The Kremlin has analysed these events and has arrived at an obvious conclusion: in both cases America did what it did because it felt its own strategic superiority. If the United States achieves the NMD goals, its superiority vis-à-vis Russia and others will become so pronounced that it will lose any incentive whatsoever to listen to opposite views and to respect interests of others. Finally, a moment may come when the U.S. will decide to punish Russia itself for actions which Americans don't appreciate or for some reasons don't understand; like Moscow's current fight against terrorists in Chechnya, or Russia's attempts to produce new advanced weapons capable of countering the American war potential. Like it or not, Russia is not ready to submit itself to the American domination. Instead Moscow insists on the preservation of the ABM Treaty. Its alteration, and especially an outright American withdrawal from it, will undermine the entire nuclear disarmament infrastructure, which has been built by Moscow and Washington in the course of thirty years. In case the United States provides for a total security of its territory from a nuclear attack all other disarmament agreements will lose any sense. Instead of continuing to disarm itself, Russia will start thinking about creating new generations of offensive missiles capable of penetrating the American NMD system. A new round of arms race will unfold. The centuries-old competition between a shield and a sword will resume with the effectiveness of a sword as usual beating the effectiveness of a shield. Russia will not be the only one country, which will join the race. Although China is not a party to the ABM Treaty, it clearly bases its nuclear planning at least in part on the guarantees the Treaty provides. China's armed forces are still decades behind the American ones, but yet Beijing's nuclear-missile arsenal gives it the opportunity to be if not a world then at least a regional military power, ensuring its interests vis-a-vis Taipei, Japan, South, and Southeast Asia. The American NMD system coupled with U.S. plans for a theatre missile defence (TMD) in the Far East poses a direct threat to China's current arsenal consisting of only some two dozen single-warhead missiles capable of reaching the United States. As for the American TMD system in the Far East, which is supposed to include Taiwan, it will leave Beijing helpless if this island chooses to officially proclaim independence from China. Such eventuality is absolutely unacceptable to the PRC (People's Republic of China) leadership, considering unification with Taiwan as a top national priority. Beijing will react to the American NMD and TMD efforts by stepping up own nuclear and missile programs. China will make sure that it possesses an arsenal capable of threatening both Taiwan and the United States proper. Washington and Taipei will be followed by others with counter measures against increased military efforts of the PRC. Japan, which is already worried about China's might, will undoubtedly join the arms race and may very well decide to go nuclear - if it feels that it cannot continue to rely exclusively on the American nuclear umbrella. Japan's militarization, coupled with China's military build-up, will echo throughout the vast Asia and the Pacific region. Sooner or later all other states will be sucked into the race, fearing powerful China or Japan, or both, and trying simultaneously to match the efforts of immediate neighbours. Japan's missile drive will scare first of all North Korea and compel it to resume a missile program. South Korea will respond accordingly. Southeast Asian nations - Indonesia, the Philippines and others - will respond to both Chinese and Japanese militarization. India will do its best not to fall behind China; Pakistan will immediately match India's preparations. Pakistani activities will stir up emotions in Iran. If Iran plunges into a new heightened arms race all its neighbours will sooner or later follow the suit: Turkey, Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. The missile and nuclear epidemic from the Middle East will sweep in the direction of Europe, where, by that time, the arms race will heat up by its own reasons. The Russian response to the American NMD will scare European nations. They'll scramble for their own protection: NATO members by demanding missile interceptors and missiles; others by storming into the NATO ranks or, on the contrary, taking refuge in a military alliance with Russia. The world will inevitably plunge into chaos and turmoil. International relations will get out of control. It is better not to speculate on the possible outcome of such developments for the mankind. Luckily, Russia's concern about the ABM Treaty and American plans in the NMD field is shared by many countries. The United Nations General Assembly adopted on December 1, 1999 a resolution on preservation of and compliance with the ABM Treaty. The resolution was approved by a vote of 80 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Latvia, Micronesia, United States), with 68 abstentions. And even among those who abstained many privately oppose the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems for a defence of national territories, realising that such actions will undermine global strategic stability, world peace and further strategic arms reduction. Russian leadership feels that it is still possible to prevent collapse of the ABM Treaty and the entire disarmament process. Moscow constantly advances various compromise proposals to the American government. Russia, for instance, suggests combining efforts for creation of theatre missile defence in Europe permitted under the ABM Treaty. Interested European parties could set up together with Russia and the U.S. a joint commission to assess the rogue state and other missile threats and to work out the concept of a Pan-European TMD system. As further steps, an All-European Center for monitoring missile launches may be opened; appropriate military exercises can be performed; research and development in the TMD field will be promoted. Finally, a European TMD system to protect peacekeeping forces and population will be formed. Similar efforts can be applied in Asia and the Pacific, but with the view that the TMD system there must not lead to the establishment of closed military or political blocks and undermine security interests of other countries. Specifically, Beijing's concerns about Taiwan have to be taken into consideration. There are other proposals by Russia, whose aim is to engage the United States in cooperative actions to guarantee international peace and security in the 2Ist century. These actions are not limited to the arms control and disarmament field. In a broader sense it is extremely important to strengthen the role of the United Nations and regional organisations, working under the U.N. mandate: to observe and develop norms of the international law. If these requirements are met by at least leading states of the world then we may hope that the next century will be more stable and peaceful in the history of mankind than the 20th century. And the above-mentioned requirements actually can be easily met by leading states. It is obvious, for instance, that nothing else prevents a close and friendly partnership between Russia and the United States. There is no longer an ideological rift between the two states. As a matter of fact Russia is trying to build a democratic society and a market economy very much along the lines of the American or, in a broader sense, Western model. It is also clear that neither the United States nor Russia have the slightest desire or intention to go to war against each other. Economic interdependence is another important factor tying Russia and the United States together. In the Cold War era the two superpowers worked hard to undermine the well-being of each other. Now Russia wholeheartedly wishes the U.S. dollar to remain stable - because both the Russian government and private citizens keep their savings in the American currency. The Kremlin realizes that if the U.S. economy collapses the entire world economy will be shaken. Americans for their part cannot ignore the fact that if Russia plunges into a severe social and economic crisis repercussions will be strongly felt throughout Eurasia and Europe, hurting the interests of U.S. allies and the United States itself. There are growing cultural links between Russia and the U.S. On the Russian TV, for example, it is easier now to find more American movies than domestic ones. On the campus of Harvard University you may meet students from all over Russia, while American businessmen, researchers, and religious missionaries are active even in the most remote corners of the Russian Federation. So, opportunities for Russia and America as well as the entire West to live more harmoniously in the 2Ist century are here. Let's hope they will not be lost due to short-sightedness, miscalculations and the mistakes of politicians. July 28, 2000 (back to top) |
Site updated
|
|
Opinions expressed on this website do not necessarily reflect those of the APC
This site Copyright of the Australian Peace Committee , contact
APC-SA |
