 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 31 August - 6 September 2000 Issue No. 497 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 31 August - 6 September 2000 Issue No. 497
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters The new arms race
By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
At the G-8 meeting on 21 July, presidents Clinton and Putin talked at length about a North Korean offer to give up its missile programme if it gets international assistance in launching space satellites. A Clinton spokesman said the president exhibited interest in the offer: "If what's envisioned is North Korea's giving up its ballistic missile programme, that would be something we are prepared to pursue."
The North Korean missile threat is at the heart of the US proposal to build the National Missile Defence system (NMD). There are other "rogue" states in the eyes of Washington, but North Korea is regarded as the most dangerous threat. Now that Pyongyang's recent moves towards diplomatic openness lessen the need for the NMD, would the US be willing to consider giving it up?
The Pentagon's most expensive and controversial research effort to date, the National Missile Defence System has seen a sudden surge in popularity. Such is the confidence in this successor to Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" programme that the military's senior air-defence officials now personally sit in on annual war games that they were long content to ignore. Though 16 years of work and $60 billion in spending have not demonstrated that the concept is workable, the NMD programme appears remarkably close to liftoff.
The project's improving prospects have alarmed the Russians and the Chinese, who fear that it could further tip the global balance of power in Washington's favour. A joint Russian-Chinese statement warned of "its most adverse consequences." The project has not met with a favourable response even from Washington's allies. France and Germany warned of "a strategic breakdown and an arms race which would undermine arms control." And, although Tony Blair himself has yet to take a position on the NMD project, a significant degree of opposition within the British Labour Party highlights the dilemma that the proposed US system poses for his government. A British parliamentary committee has expressed serious concerns about the US plans to build the National Missile Defence System, noting that Washington "cannot necessarily assume unqualified cooperation" from its closest ally, while top British officials have described the Pentagon's unilateral preparations as "needlessly dividing NATO."
Critics of the US, including 50 Nobel laureates, say that a missile defence system could cost upward of $100 billion in pursuit of a possibly unworkable technology. They fear that it could unravel critical arms control agreements, notably the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972, which prohibits the installation of nationwide missile defence systems. Even worse, they say, it could cause the US to spend billions of dollars on a futuristic system that enemies could overwhelm or simply circumvent. Actually, the violation of the 1972 ABM Treaty is a foregone conclusion if the US decides to press ahead with its NMD project. Such a move would fan anti-Americanism in Russia just at a time the furore there over NATO's war against Serbia could be expected to be ebbing. The prospects for Russian economic reform might also suffer if the country's leaders decide to respond to the challenge with a counter-project.
President Clinton who, four years ago, disparaged the concept as "unproved" and "ineffective," asked Congress in January 1999 for an additional $6.6 billion to possibly deploy the NMD system before 2005. Some ascribe his change of heart to the political pressure being applied by defence contractors working on the project. The contractors make up a network that stretches right across the United States and constitutes a formidable pressure lobby. Noting that big defence programmes are rarely cancelled once Congress and contractors come or board, critics of the system acknowledge that the moves towards missile defence may have already gone so far that there is no turning back.
US Secretary of Defence William Cohen made it clear that it was a question of when, not of whether, the US would go ahead. The US has already began building 100 ground-based interceptors at a site in Alaska, a decision that will require amending the ABM treaty. Washington insists that it is designed to deter "rogue" states, not only North Korea, but also Iran, Iraq and Libya. As the NMD takes shape, the Russians, whose large missile arsenal could break a compromise with the US on changes in the treaty. However, China, which has far fewer long-range missiles and is concerned about the implications for its security, particularly as relates to its relations with Taiwan, is adopting a hard-line position on the NMD.
Many American experts have underscored that the proposed missile shield would leave the US vulnerable to significant threats to its security. Some of the threats would increase in reaction to its deployment. These, according to the specialists, include:
- proliferation of low-flying cruise missiles, potentially carrying biological warfare warheads, against which the United States has no good defence. At least 81 countries already have cruise missiles; about a dozen countries export them; relatively "cheap," they cost $1 million each that is, one third the price of a ballistic missile;
- increased reliance on satellites for missile detection which will make these satellites (whether military or commercial) more valuable targets for US adversaries. From about 700 US satellites in orbit four years ago, the number has now increased to 2000;
- the proposed missile defence system is designed specifically against "rogue" states in the northern hemisphere; it will not protect the US from missiles launched from the southern hemisphere. This gap could encourage adversaries to attack temporary land or sea bases below the equator.
China has already threatened to build enough missiles and warheads to overwhelm the number of anti-missile interceptors the US deploys. An expansion of China's missile force is bound to cause India to deploy more missiles in response, which would cause Pakistan to follow suit. The escalation could become overwhelming.
The Clinton administration has timidly initiated the project, but the Republicans enthusiastically support it. Condolizza Rice, the foreign affairs adviser to the Republican candidate, Georges W Bush, promised in her speech to the party's convention in Philadelphia that a Bush administration would seek to develop a missile defence system "at the earliest possible date". But whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats who win the elections, Israel is a main beneficiary of the NMD.
This year or the next, Israel is likely to become the first country in the world to have an anti-ballistic missile shield. It is even now rumoured that the US is going to provide Israel with the radar and satellite capability needed for such a system to function properly and without which Israel could not deploy a working system so quickly. For the first time, Israel will be systematically hooked up to the American worldwide defence system.
While China has pulled no punches in warning the Americans against providing a ballistic shield to Taiwan, the Arab states have not reacted to the threat inherent in the further enhancement of US/Israeli military cooperation. It should be remembered that Israel possesses a huge arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, over and above its Arrow-1 and Arrow-2 missiles. Its military strength is estimated at eight times that of all the Arab armies combined. The Gore-Lieberman ticket may be less inclined to develop the NMD than the Bush-Cheney ticket. But that is not to say that a Democratic administration would be any less supportive of the Israelis than its Republican counterpart.
