10 - 16 May 2001
Issue No.533
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 10 - 16 May 2001 Issue No.533 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
New chance for double standards
President Bush has finally expounded his ideas concerning America's new anti-missile defence system. Mohamed Sid-Ahmed discusses its impact on the Middle East
In a major speech delivered last week at the National Defence University, President Bush called for an ambitious anti-missile system reflecting a new understanding of global security to replace the one which prevailed under Cold War conditions. He dismissed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, signed with the Soviet Union in 1972, as an outdated arrangement that met the security requirements of a previous stage but not those that have emerged following the breakdown of the bipolar world order. Bush declared that despite the collapse of the Communist camp, the world is still facing grave danger and that nuclear deterrence is not an adequate defence against the threat represented by 'rogue states' which possess or try to acquire nuclear weapons - states he described as hostile and aggressive. The enemy is no longer Russia, but Iraq and other states for whom blackmail, according to Bush, is a mode of life. Seeking to justify his highly controversial project, Bush cited the possibility that these states could not only attack US targets but, more importantly, blackmail Washington and its allies by threatening attacks.
Arguing that the 1972 Treaty ignored the technological progress realised throughout the last three decades and deprived the US of defence opportunities in face of the new dangers threatening Washington and its allies. Bush has initiated a project similar to the one Ronald Reagan launched under the name "Star Wars". While Bush has chosen a less flamboyant name for his proposed defence system, its objectives are essentially the same as those of Star Wars: the interception of incoming hostile missiles before they reach their target, preferably right after they are launched when dense exhaust fume emissions make them easily detectable. This entails a degree of pinpoint accuracy that is beyond current technological capabilities, especially if the target is a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile.
The proposed anti-missile defence system is thus a leap in the dark, a high-stake gamble with no guarantee of success. Domestic critics have lambasted the project, which is based on unproven technology and is expected to cost upward of 60 billion dollars. It would seem that Bush's motivation in trying to push it through is less defense than economic considerations: stimulating the sluggish economy by pumping more money into the military-industrial complex.
International reactions to the project have been mixed. No state has endorsed it without reservation. But given America's status in the community of nations, no state could afford to ignore it. Russia warned that an American missile defence shield would upset the global strategic balance and launch a new arms race, but welcomed assurances by Bush that he would not abrogate the ABM Treaty unilaterally, that "real consultations" with other concerned nations would precede any practical steps the administration will eventually take and that the new missile defence system will be accompanied by drastic cuts in America's nuclear arsenal.
Of America's allies, France was the most sharply critical of the Bush plan. President Chirac described it as "inviting the proliferation of banned weapons." Sweden, which now holds the rotating European Union presidency, condemned the missile defence system and called on the US not to implement it. Even the British government, known for its close ties with Washington, avoided clearly endorsing the project while stating that it shared Bush's belief that the main danger now emanates from the so-called 'rogue' states and that the ABM Treaty cannot be effective in defeating their policies.
But the nation which feels particularly threatened by the new American anti-missile project is China, which described it as an offensive, not a defensive, project that would not only boost the arms race but also threaten world peace and security. China does not fear that America will actually occupy mainland China, but is worried that the anti-missile shield Bush is planning to construct would make the US feel more invincible than it already does and encourage it to ride roughshod over anything and anyone that stands in its way. The US had no qualms when it came to subjecting Serbia to intense raids, and Peking fears that Kosovo-style crises could erupt anywhere else in the world, including in China's vicinity.
China has developed a military capability that could eventually enable it to extend its sovereignty over Taiwan, or at least to prevent Taiwan from becoming a recognised independent state. From this viewpoint China does not want to be looked upon by the US as a rival power in the western Pacific area. Contradictory interests between the two states have already brought about a clash between a US reconnaissance plane and an F-8 Chinese fighter. Many crisis situations have emerged over the years because of Washington's arms deals with Taiwan, and the situation can only get worse if, as is expected, Washington provides Taiwan with an anti-missile defence shield.
The Chinese are saying that even before deploying the shield, the US bombed Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq. The construction of the shield will embolden America to go further in its arrogance with other states, even if it does keep its promise to substantially reduce its nuclear arsenal. For however deep the cuts in nuclear weapons, America's military superiority over China is such that any reductions, whether quantitative or qualitative or both, are not expected to seriously affect the balance of power.
Thus China, more than any other state, is worried by Bush's missile defence system. An interesting analogy can be drawn here between the trilogy America/China/Taiwan at the global level and the trilogy America/the Arab states/Iraq at the Middle East level. Taiwan is the tool the US uses to put pressure on China and justify the need for the anti-missile shield. Iraq is the tool the US is using to pressure the Arab states into giving priority to confronting Saddam Hussein over confronting Ariel Sharon. The Arabs are required to step up their confrontation with the Iraqi regime in line with Washington's designation of Saddam Hussein as public enemy number one, the position occupied by the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. They are being asked to end their hostility towards Israel so as to focus their attention on the greater threat posed by Iraq, which, under the present circumstances, entails accepting Sharon's unacceptable conditions for a settlement. American pressure in this direction can drive a wedge in Arab ranks, between Arab parties who consider their main contradiction to be with Sharon's Israel and those for whom the impact of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is not over and see the Bush administration's focus on Iraq as an opportunity to settle old scores with Baghdad.
Can the Arabs in general, and Egypt in particular, benefit from the Bush project? There is no doubt that Israel will benefit. Indeed, it is expected to be the first foreign state that Washington will provide with an anti-missile shield to protect it from attacks by Arab 'rogue states'.
It will be interesting to see how the Bush administration will deal in this respect with 'friendly' Arab states. Will they be treated on a par with Israel, or will Washington make extending them with an anti-missile shield contingent on their attitude towards the 'rogue states' in the region, not only Iraq, but eventually other states on America's black list, such as Sudan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon? This is an issue worthy of a serious discussion with the US administration, not only in an American-Egyptian dialogue, but also at the American-Arab level, now that the missile defence system has become a cornerstone of the new American administration's policies.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page