| The United States withdrew from the landmark
1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13. Little pageantry
or protest marked the U.S. move abrogating the treaty and its
prohibition against nationwide missile defenses, despite often
fierce debate on the accord within Washington and around the world.
President George W. Bush, who had announced the U.S. pullout
six months earlier, issued a short written statement the day the
treaty expired. In it, he noted that the treaty is “now
behind us,” and he reiterated his commitment to deploy missile
defenses “as soon as possible” to protect against
“growing missile threats.”
The president’s subdued commemoration of the treaty’s
passing contrasted sharply with his administration’s earlier
fervent attacks on the accord. Bush and other senior officials
had frequently described the ABM Treaty as a Cold War relic and
painted it as the sole obstacle to building a national missile
defense, one of the administration’s top priorities.
Signed in 1972 by Washington and Moscow to slow the nuclear
arms race, the ABM Treaty barred both superpowers from deploying
national defenses against long-range ballistic missiles and from
building the foundation for such a defense. The treaty was based
on the premise that if either superpower constructed a strategic
defense, the other would build up its offensive nuclear forces
to offset the defense. The superpowers would therefore quickly
be put on a path toward a never-ending offensive-defensive arms
race as each tried to balance its counterpart’s action.
The treaty did, however, allow both sides to build defenses
against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
Over time, most countries, including the United States until
Bush took office, referred to the treaty as a “cornerstone
of strategic stability” because it facilitated later agreements
limiting and reducing U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear
arsenals.
Yet, the treaty’s demise met largely with silence. Even
Russia, which had repeatedly criticized the prospect of a U.S.
withdrawal, said almost nothing June 13, although the Kremlin
announced the next day that it would no longer be bound by the
START II offensive arms reduction treaty. (See Russia Declares
Itself No Longer Bound by START II.) That move, however, was largely
symbolic, given that START II never entered into force and that
it was effectively superceded by the May 24 Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty. (See ACT, June 2002.)
Moscow’s assessment that the United States is unlikely
to deploy a national missile defense anytime soon may partially
explain its muted reaction. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov
described U.S. missile defenses June 14 as being “virtual”
and therefore requiring no immediate response, according to the
Russian news agency Interfax.
In addition, Russia, led by President Vladimir Putin, has sought
to cement closer ties with the United States and apparently does
not want to jeopardize warming relations with Washington by unduly
lamenting an action to which the Bush administration was dedicated.
Speaking the day of the U.S. withdrawal, Russian Foreign Minister
Igor Ivanov said that Russia regrets the action but that “it
is now a fait accompli” and “it is our task to minimize
the adverse consequences.”
Some Russian legislators showed less reserve, claiming the United
States had erred tremendously. Alexei Arbatov, vice-chairman of
the defense committee in the Russian legislature’s lower,
more powerful house, stated in a June 13 Moscow radio interview
that the U.S. treaty withdrawal was an “extremely negative
event of historical scale.”
Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) also termed the move historic, but for
a different reason, enthusiastically declaring June 13 that the
United States “is no longer handcuffed to a policy that
intentionally leaves its own people defenseless to missile attack.”
Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and James Inhofe (R-OK) also released
statements supporting Bush’s act.
But the single senator to speak on the Senate floor June 13
about the U.S. withdrawal was disapproving. Senator Jack Reed
(D-RI) said the U.S. pullout was unwarranted because missile defense
technologies that would have violated the treaty “are mere
concepts that are years away.” He also said that terrorists
are more likely to use means other than long-range ballistic missiles,
such as planes and ships, to attack the United States.
Two days earlier, a group of 31 House members also registered
their opposition to the impending treaty withdrawal. Led by Representative
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), they sued Bush, Secretary of State Colin
Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to stop the ABM
Treaty pullout.
The group, comprised of 30 Democrats and one Independent, charges
that the president cannot act alone in pulling out of a treaty.
While acknowledging that the Constitution does not explicitly
address treaty withdrawal, the lawsuit asserts that “the
President has a duty to seek and obtain the concurrence of two
thirds of the Senate or a majority of both Houses for the termination
of a treaty.” Two-thirds of the Senate must approve a treaty
for it to take effect.
A similar 1979 lawsuit by Senator Barry Goldwater against President
Jimmy Carter for his decision to abrogate the U.S. mutual defense
treaty with Taiwan eventually reached the Supreme Court. But the
justices dismissed Goldwater’s suit without ruling whether
the president could independently terminate a treaty.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia will hear
the ABM lawsuit, but it is uncertain when a decision will be made.
The District Court, which was the first court to hear the 1979
case, ruled in favor of Goldwater.
Despite the pending trial, the Pentagon is pressing ahead with
its missile defense programs.
Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, director of the Pentagon’s
Missile Defense Agency (MDA), has claimed three benefits of the
treaty withdrawal for U.S. missile defense efforts. First, the
Pentagon will be permitted to experiment with different types
of sensors, such as testing a sea-based radar to see if it can
track strategic targets. MDA plans to use the radar in an August
test despite past Pentagon assessments that the radar is not capable
of supporting strategic intercepts.
Second, the Pentagon says it will now be able to explore greater
international cooperation on missile defenses.
Third, the United States will be free to deploy strategic missile
defense systems when they are ready. The Pentagon currently has
only one missile defense system, the ground-based midcourse program
begun by President Bill Clinton, that has been tested against
strategic targets. Pentagon plans call for constructing six ground-based
midcourse missile interceptor silos—five for missiles and
one spare—at Fort Greely, Alaska, by September 2004. Ostensibly
for testing purposes, the interceptors could be used in an emergency
situation, according to the Pentagon.
Although preparatory work began at Fort Greely last year, Kadish
traveled to the site June 15 for a groundbreaking ceremony with
Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) to mark the beginning of silo construction
this summer. The Fort Greely site would have been legal under
the ABM Treaty if built strictly for testing purposes.
Statement by the President on the ABM
Treaty
Six months ago, I announced that the United States
was withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty,
and today that withdrawal formally takes effect. With the treaty
now behind us, our task is to develop and deploy effective defenses
against limited missile attacks. As the events of September 11
made clear, we no longer live in the Cold War world for which
the ABM Treaty was designed. We now face new threats from terrorists
who seek to destroy our civilization by any means available to
rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction and long-range
missiles. Defending the American people against these threats
is my highest priority as commander-in-chief.
The new strategic challenges of the 21st century
require us to think differently. But they also require us to act.
I call on the Congress to approve the full amount of the funding
I have requested in my budget for missile defense. This will permit
the United States to work closely with all nations committed to
freedom to pursue the policies and capabilities needed to make
the world a safer place for generations to come.
I am committed to deploying a missile defense
system as soon as possible to protect the American people and
our deployed forces against the growing missile threats we face.
Because these threats also endanger our allies and friends around
the world, it is essential that we work together to defend against
them, an important task which the ABM Treaty prohibited. The United
States will deepen our dialogue and cooperation with other nations
on missile defenses.
Last month, President Vladimir Putin and I agreed
that Russia and the United States would look for ways to cooperate
on missile defenses, including expanding military exercises, sharing
early-warning data, and exploring potential joint research and
development of missile defense technologies. Over the past year,
our countries have worked hard to overcome the legacy of the Cold
War and to dismantle its structures. The United States and Russia
are building a new relationship based on common interests and,
increasingly, common values. Under the Treaty of Moscow, the nuclear
arsenals of our nations will be reduced to their lowest levels
in decades. Cooperation on missile defense will also make an important
contribution to furthering the relationship we both seek.
Source: White House
See also:
the original at
http://www.armscontrol.org/
ABM
Treaty
| 