source, Bill?
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:@mandy.eunet.fi;>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:22 PM
Subject: News Analysis: NMD: A Move to Endanger World Peace, Security
> News Analysis: NMD: A Move to Endanger World Peace, Security
>
> By Tang Shuifu
> The new U.S. administration, in defiance of worldwide opposition, is
> obstinate in its insistence on continuing to develop and deploy the
> controversial National Missile Defense (NMD) system.
> Such a move, analysts say, will not only spark a new arms race and create a
> proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but will also threaten world
> peace and security in the 21st century.
> After the failure of two of three NMD tests, former President Bill Clinton
> decided on September 1 last year to leave a final decision on NMD deployment
> to his successor.
> However, immediately after assuming office on January 20, President George
> W. Bush announced he would honor a campaign pledge to deploy the NMD system.
> The proposed NMD, a replica of the "Star Wars" project, formulated during
> the Reagan administration in 1980s, is designed to provide protection for
> all 50 U.S. states from ballistic missile attacks coming from so-called
> "countries of concern," such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
> (DPRK) and Iran, which the United States claims are developing long-range
> ballistic missiles.
> Compared with the previous government's plan, the Bush administration stand
> on NMD, which is projected to cost about 60 billion U.S. dollars, is more
> aggressive and risky.
> Clinton said the NMD shield would cover 50 states. But Bush claims the
> system will not only protect the U.S. territory, but also American allies.
> Besides, Bush also plans to enlarge the land-based NMD to the sea-based and
> space-based system.
> Meanwhile, Clinton stressed that in making the NMD deployment decision, the
> United States should take into account the cost, the technical feasibility,
> the extent of the missile threat, and the effect on arms control agreements.
> However, the Bush administration not only insists NMD should be deployed as
> soon as the system proves workable, but also warns that if Russia does not
> agree to revise the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, signed by the
> United States and the former Soviet Union in 1972, Washington will withdraw
> from the treaty.
> The United States, the country armed with the world's most powerful and
> advanced nuclear and conventional arsenal, has repeatedly claimed that NMD
> is intended to counter the increasing threats posed by missile
> proliferation. To say the least, the United States has over-exaggerated the
> threats of missiles from "countries of concern."
> Judging from the economic and technological weaknesses of these countries,
> analysts say it is difficult to imagine these countries developing, much
> less deploying, missiles capable of reaching the U.S. territory in the
> foreseeable future.
> The NMD program is opposed by many countries in the world, including Russia
> and China. Some experts say the defense system, part of the U.S. global
> military strategy, principally targets Russia and China. The United States,
> in pursuit of its absolute superiority as the only superpower in the world,
> desires to use the system to deprive Russia and China as well as other
> countries of a nuclear deterrent capability.
> At the same time, America's allies, including France, Germany, Italy and
> Canada, have also rejected NMD, saying that instead of promoting security
> and stemming the spread of nuclear weapons, the system will threaten the
> security and stimulate nuclear proliferation.
> Even Britain, the best friend of the United States in Europe, seems unsure.
> British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said "there is no perception" in
> Britain of a threat that warrants such a missile defense shield.
> The United Nations Assembly has also passed a resolution on safeguarding the
> ABM Treaty twice in succession.
> The development, deployment and transfer of anti-missile systems with
> potential strategic defense capabilities cannot ensure security or prevent
> missile proliferation. Such an action, on the contrary, will damage security
> and boost the spread of missiles; not even mentioning it is in violation of
> the ABM Treaty.
> The ABM Treaty has served as a cornerstone of global strategic balance and
> stability since it was concluded. Even today, the treaty still provides a
> security framework for multilateral nuclear disarmament and for further
> bilateral reductions of nuclear arsenals by the United States and Russia.
> The strategic significance of the treaty goes far beyond the scope of the
> U.S.-Russia bilateral relationship. If, however, the treaty is amended, as
> requested by the United States, it would certainly lose all its
> significance, and global strategic balance and stability would be the
> victim.
> On February 6, the Pentagon announced it would conduct the fourth test of
> the NMD system in May or June. The Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense
> Organization may also test a new booster for NMD as early as March. All
> signs indicate that the United States has accelerated its development and
> testing of the NMD system.
> Observers say once NMD is deployed, it could further strengthen the U.S.
> tendency towards unilateralism and the tendency to use or threaten to use
> force. This will not only create more instability in the world, but also may
> start an arms race in outer space, and may also extend the arms race from
> offensive to defensive weapons.
> It will be unrealistic to expect other countries to sit on their hands while
> the United States develops NMD. They will certainly take all sorts of
> counter measures to safeguard their national security.
> History has shown that security is both mutual and relative. Real security
> can only be achieved if a country builds its security on the basis of common
> security for all.
>
>
>
>
