EDITORIAL Breaking treaties is a reckless tactic
This month Bush administration
zealots put the rush on to force the nation to begin building a questionable
and dangerous missile defense shield. The proposal, which for starters would
throw $100 billion at a Star Wars scheme, is all out of proportion
to the threat it purports to answer and threatens to revive the lunacy of the
Cold War era.
How much more beneficial it would be to earmark the missile money
for public needs such as health care and education reform.
The shield is questionable because it throws water on a fire that
does not yet exist -- and might never exist if only our nation preferred
diplomatic solutions to war preparations. The defense shield is like installing
a $10,000 alarm on a front door while leaving all the other doors and windows
open.
The shield is dangerous because its installation would abrogate
the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, the platform for three decades of
nuclear arms control efforts.
The Bush administration would have Americans believe that the ABM
treaty is a Cold-War relic. It is not. For decades, the treaty has restrained
competition between the United States and the Soviet Union to build increasing
numbers of offensive missiles. Since the Cold Wars end, it has allowed
Russia and America to dismantle portions of their nuclear arsenals without fear
that they would be unable to respond effectively to a surprise attack.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that U.S. violation of
the treaty would force Russia to augment its nuclear capability by mounting
multiple warheads on its missiles. At the same time, Putin suggested that both
the START I and START II treaties would be negated by the U.S. abrogation of
the treaty. The termination of these treaties would also eliminate verification
and inspection requirements and allow Russia to hide its nuclear capabilities.
The White House should take Putins warning seriously. Even a
cash-strapped Russia could afford to add hundreds of multiple warheads to new
and existing missiles.
China, too, opposes Bushs missile defense plan. The
Moscow-Beijing friendship agreement, the first in 50 years, signed just last
week, is the result in good measure of common opposition to the Bush missile
defense shield initiative.
There was a time, early in the Cold War, when nuclear treaty
proponents were attacked by the right-wing warriors who said: The
Russians cant be trusted. Fortunately, we went ahead with treaties.
For four decades the treaties have kept the world from falling into the brink
of massive self-destruction. They have served national and world needs.
Now come reckless calls to abandon a treaty. Simply doing so,
calling it a relic of the Cold War is arrogant, shortsighted and reckless. If
the United States can break a treaty at will, can it be trusted to sign others?
If it can break a treaty at will, can it hold others to treaties that serve
U.S. interests? Without deep respect for international treaties, the road ahead
becomes treacherous.
We see finger-pointing and hear plenty of talk in Washington as
our leaders refer to the threats of rogue nations. Rogue? It may be
time to take another look in the mirror.
National Catholic Reporter, July 27,
2001
|