It is now official. The United States administration will back out of the
1972 Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty despite severe misgivings on the
part of many public figures at home and most of its allies abroad. President
Bush, in his remarks to reporters at Crawford, Texas, has finally said the
US will renounce the treaty. It will do so on its "own timetable" and
because, in Mr Bush's view, the treaty hampers the ability of the United
States "to keep the peace, to develop defensive weapons necessary to defend
America against the true threat of the 21st century."
This threat has been identified as one of "rogue states" developing the
capacity to strike at the United States with missiles carrying weapons of
mass destruction. The states most often mentioned are Iran, Iraq, Libya and
North Korea. None of these countries currently poses such a threat but
Washington believes it should develop a missile defense system just in case
someday they might. To develop this system would entail a breach of ABM
which has been seen by most neutral observers as the cornerstone of
international security. There are justified fears that without ABM the
entire web of arms-control agreements would unravel to be replaced by a new,
if unequal, arms race.
Opposition to Mr Bush's policy has come not only from America's former cold
war enemies in Russia and China, but also from within the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization alliance, as well as from political observers in the
United States itself. In today's editions of this newspaper, a former
Republican US defense secretary, Mr Melvin R Laird contends that the Bush
administration is leading the US down the path of isolationism and
unilateralism.
Under Mr Bush, the US has refused to submit to the Kyoto protocol on climate
change and the small-arms control pact. It has insisted that the proposed
International Criminal Court should have no jurisdiction over US citizens;
it has opposed the convention on germ warfare and it has been in two minds
about attending the UN conference on racism in Durban.
There are signs that the administration's outlook may be reflected in areas
of US society previously impervious to such attitudes. In a recent editorial
urging the Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, to stay away from the Durban
conference, The New York Times wrote that his presence would "lend the
gathering a distinction it has not earned". The suggestion that
international assemblies are without distinction unless a senior American is
present, betrays a mind-set in which less powerful countries and their
representatives are seen as inferior. At a time when all other countries are
less powerful than the US, the development of such a world-view is
disturbing.
© 2001 ireland.com
###
Printer Friendly Version
E-Mail This Article
