#6
Los Angeles Times
December 19, 2002
New Era Dawns in Missile Defense
Bush's plan to deploy a system by 2004 brings barely a word from Moscow, a far cry from when the issue was a major source of tension.
By John Daniszewski, Times Staff Writer

MOSCOW -- It was once a major bone of contention that seemed to threaten a resumption of Cold War tensions between Moscow and Washington.

But in yet another sign of how the world has changed, Russia muttered barely a word of protest Wednesday following the announcement by President Bush that the United States will begin deploying interceptor missiles for a national missile defense system within two years.

Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov, on an official visit to Japan, made what one analyst called a "flaccid" statement of regret. Mostly, Russian officials passed over the U.S. decision in silence.

In a brief, mildly worded communique, the Foreign Ministry said it regretted the U.S. decision and hoped that the United States would put its main focus on developing a new strategic relationship with Russia, rather than engaging in a "destabilizing strategic defensive arms race, including in space." It said that the creation of a missile shield should not distract resources "from real challenges and threats -- primarily international terrorism."

At a summit between Bush and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin in May, Russia abandoned active protest of the proposed U.S. missile defense system. It was part of an overall package of agreements in which the two countries agreed to a strategic relationship that would include closer cooperation and consultation and deep, mutually agreed-upon cuts in offensive nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, the U.S. stance to build a national missile defense represents a sharp turning point from arms pacts negotiated more than three decades ago, and it still arouses resentment among some officials here.

All defensive missiles were banned by the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, one of the cornerstones of detente between the United States and the Soviet Union and the base for subsequent arms treaties.

But as Bush came to office in 2001, he argued that the ABM treaty had outlived its usefulness and that the risk that rogue states or terrorists might get their hands on nuclear weapons made it imperative for the U.S. to withdraw from the treaty.

At first, Russia objected vociferously. Some hard-line generals threatened to resume deploying multi-warhead missiles that could defeat any proposed U.S. defense. But the objections gradually subsided, as Putin and his advisors concluded that it would be better to focus on winning other concessions from the U.S. in the area of offensive nuclear weapons rather than a futile fight to preserve a treaty the U.S. was determined to break.

Putin's quick decision to rally to the side of the United States after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, and the new U.S. focus on the war against terrorism, also pushed the nations' differences over missile defense into the background.

"I think the serious strategic debates on the topic ... ended long ago," said Ivan Safranchuk, director of the Russian branch of the international think tank the Center for Defense Information, in an interview Wednesday.

He said the two sides had already agreed to disagree, "which allows the Americans to go ahead and build while Russia can go on expressing its disgruntlement without any serious countermoves or threats."

Safranchuk said the grousing may go on, but it was more significant that Putin himself had not said a word about the U.S. move announced Tuesday and that the overall tone of the statement from the Foreign Ministry was not harsh.

"We are bound to hear more echoes of passive discontent from Russian officials during the future stages of the NMD [National Missile Defense] development, but they in no way indicate that Russia is planning to do anything about it," he said. In Tokyo on Wednesday, Ivanov acknowledged that countries might one day wish to set up regional antiballistic missile defenses.

BACK TO THE TOP    #236 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE