HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
Tribuna
December 21, 2001
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ISN'T TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH
Possible consequences of the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty
Author: Vladimir Kuklev
Source: Tribuna, December 21, 2001, p. 6
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
MAJOR-GENERAL VLADIMIR KUKLEV LOOKS AT HOW THE US WITHDRAWAL FROM
THE ABM TREATY OF 1972 IS LIKELY TO AFFECT RUSSIA. THE UNITED STATES
IS ASPIRING TO UNILATERAL NUCLEAR RESTRICTION, WHEN THE US WOULD BE
ABLE TO RESTRICT ANY OTHER STATE, BUT NO OTHER STATE WOULD BE ABLE TO
RESTRICT THE UNITED STATES.
George Bush has announced that the United States is pulling out
of the ABM Treaty of 1972. What will be the consequences for Russia?
The mutual nuclear restriction (or mutually assured destruction)
between the USSR and the United States envisaged in the treaty
maintained stability in relations between the two states, and had a
positive influence on the global situation. This provided favorable
opportunities for developing the process of limitation and decrease in
other weapons of mass destruction, non-proliferation of them in the
world, securing the atmosphere of trust in relations between states.
The decision of the United States to withdraw from the treaty
means a conceptual change in its nuclear strategy. The United States
is rejecting the idea of mutual nuclear restriction and aspire to
unilateral nuclear restriction, or a situation when the US would be
able to restrict any other state, but no state would be able to
restrict the United States. And this is strategic domination in the
world, which Russia has long been fighting against, favoring the ABM
Treaty.
The American supporters of creating a missile defense assert that
present relations between Russia and the United States have outgrown
the level of mutual restriction, and it is necessary to look for new
frames of strategic relations between the two countries.
Firstly, the president of the United States did not tell the
whole truth. In fact, the United States does not deny the doctrine of
restriction as it is. Representatives of present US administration
speak about the necessity to strengthen restriction, with more stress
on defense. The United States now wants only to make this restriction
one-sided.
Will it be in the interests of Russia? I doubt it. The US
national missile defense will lessen the value of our strategic
potential, and question our security, at least from the side of the
United States. Of course, at present there is no direct threat from
the United States, however, political situation is changing more
rapidly than defense abilities of countries. And the events of recent
years show that military forces are more often used in the United
States as a universal and most convincing argument in settling all
questions. And it would be a crime to abandon the last what we have -
ability to maintain strategic nuclear restriction in respect to any
country. While we maintain it, we can continue talking to the United
States as equals in the sphere of security, at least.
Secondly, on what foundation is the establishment of this
"mutual cooperation" based, what should replace the mutual nuclear
restriction? There is no definite answer to this question yet, there
is only talk about some "partnership", which should be agreed on as
soon as possible. At the same time, the experience of the closest
allies of the United States in NATO proves that there is no equality
in it. Especially since Russian-American relations have not yet
reached the level, when we could forget about our own security.
Thirdly, if we are going to be partners with the United States on
some basis, different from mutual nuclear reastriction, what shall we
do with the military doctrine of the Russian Federation, in particular
with its major point about the role of strategic nuclear restriction
in securing defensive capacity of the country? And of this position
keeps its importance, then it is necessary to admit discrepancies
between the approaches of Russia and the United States toward the
essence of our future relations. And in its turn, it shows the
necessity of minute elaboration of each step and danger of haste in
forming a new relationship with the United States.
Fourthly, even if we admit that it is necessary to replace mutual
nuclear restriction with something else, it would make sense first to
agree on these new relations, fix them and then start destroying the
old ones. However, the US administration decided otherwise, and our
obvious concernment about working out new frames as soon as possible
helps them, because it comforts Russian and the world public opinion,
worried about dangerous actions of the United States.
There is another question: how much do we need those new frames?
Is not it high time for us to get rid of that old habit to place the
relations with the United States in the center of our foreign
policies? We do not consider changing our relkationships with other
states. Besides, this would correspond to the idea of building a
multi-polar world. even officials of the United States declare that
relations with Russia are no longer a priority in foreign policy.
(Translated by Daria Brunova)
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
