Whither NMD

Columnist SADIA NASIR analyses whether President Bush’s initiative will come into effect.

With the end of the cold war US has undoubtedly emerged as the sole super power of the world. But instead of assuming a leadership role it has started moving towards hegemony. The obvious example is that of National Missile Defence (NMD) declaration which is to ensure security of US against the so-called “Rogue States”.

The NMD is a clear violation of Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, signed in 1972 ensuring restraint from the super powers. But the question is — is NMD really needed?

Since the end of cold war US has no evident threat to counter. Then against whom it is directed? The Rogue states are in no way a match or even a possible threat for security of US in foreseeable future. Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Libya have enough of their internal problems to deal with, nor do they have resources and capacity to pose any serious threat to a formidable power like that of USA.

Therefore, apparently one cannot comprehend any justification for revoking “Reagonomics” by increasing military expenditures, as there is no Soviet Union to counter. Then why to incur such huge military expenditures? Reason may be that in US military industrial complex has a stronghold in policy making and they would not allow any cuts in military expenditures leading towards losses. Secondly, US being a super power will always try to maintain its supremacy over other arms producing countries and even if these countries will try to compete with US that will only lead to exhaustion of resources as happened with the then Soviet Union.

President Putin’s remarks on NMD is very apt and convincing —“We are against a cure that is worse than the disease”. Even if there is a threat, military build up is not the only available option. Why not to go for more constructive way to deal with the situation. US defence programme will only aggravate the arms race and nuclear proliferation. China and Russia will be the first to react. They will try to counter USA technology, which will lead to a chain-reaction. If US has to check the activities of the “States of Concern” then why not to deal with them in a constructive way. Why not to adopt a ‘carrot’ rather than a ‘stick policy’?

US has previously opened up with North Korea successfully. This policy of improvement of relations, would have been the desired option rather than create mistrust and antipathy. Iran and Iraq are also not strong enough to threaten US. Iran has started moving towards a moderate Government and Iraq’s Saddam is more concerned about succession, than striking US with ballistic missiles. US can induce them towards friendlier relationship by opening up to them and refraining from threatening communication. This supposed threat to US security is indeed dubious and only be an excuse for deployment of strategy of intimidation.

This will only lead to a world more vulnerable than before. Other countries are likely to follow US suit. They will also try to develop their technologies to counter US, which will lead to proliferation of TMD (Theatre Missile Defence) in all regions and consequently to arms race among countries. Especially China will be the most concerned, because of the possibility of US providing TMD to Taiwan.

The same situation will be visible in Middle East due to the new development, as US has transferred TMD technology to Israel along with financial assistance. This will induce other regional countries to enter into arms race to be able to match up with Israel. Thus the BMD programmes will spur additional offensive technologies threatening the security environment of the world.

The NMD will also threaten international relations and violate ABM treaty. This “Star Wars” proposal has been condemned by many, even by US allies, France, Canada and Germany. This will definitely damage future arms control and reduction agreements and will also undermine current global strategic balance.

Though US government claims NMD to be meant for defensive purposes but it will surely threaten security of a number of nations. It will not be wise to start a new dimension of warfare by deploying warheads in outer space, it would be better to leave Space for peaceful purposes.

The NMD project involves very high cost and will be wasting around $ 100 million of tax payer’s money without guaranteeing 100% success to act as the counter deterrence. Even in these circumstances US economy will be able to absorb the shock but it will very badly affect other countries following US footsteps, especially the third world countries. US military build up will degrade other’s defence systems and will induce them to follow US. Russia was destroyed by these ‘Star Wars’ competition and same is likely to happen to these followers.

NMD will give impetus to terrorist activities. ‘Bombs in suit-case’ or chemical and biological weapons might be used as substitutes. Will then NMD to able to counter the attacks launched from inside America. If not, then what security is it going to ensure.

US should recognize its responsibility as sole super power and should go for constructive engagement and cooperation all over the world. It should try to bring countries together for peaceful purposes rather than igniting arms race among them. US should try to integrate world community and international opinion, rather than focusing solely on self-defence which will only increase suspicion. One cannot aspire to be a truly world leader by cooperating with only two or three countries while ignoring the rest of international community. It will only alienate other countries as it did by denouncing the denial of Kyoto treaty. This will only lead to regional alliances and accentuation of mistrust among countries. There are already visible indications in this respect. South Asia will become very vulnerable by the revival of cold war syndrome.

India has readily endorsed US plans as US ballistic missile defence policy reveals that US will not only transfer TMD but will also extend cooperation in research. Pakistan did wise to endorse Chinese stand, as ‘truth’ and ‘moral imperatives’ must not be sacrificed at the altar of expediency.

Militarism which is basic impediment towards man’s progress, should not be increased at the cost of human development. Cooperative economic ventures should be launched to lead the world towards balanced prosperity. Militarism is anachronistic to the imperatives of global peace and harmony. USA must act as a facilitator rather annihilator of global peace.