Lifting Missile Limits

Although America’s enemies were redefined after Sept. 11, President George W. Bush has continued to pursue an obsolete agenda on defense. While the nation’s attention was turned to the war in Afghanistan, Bush has irresponsibly chosen to abandon the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in order to continue testing a costly and unreliable national missile defense system. Bush will soon give formal notice to Russia of the United States’ withdrawal from the pact. While we are not concerned that scrapping the agreement will spark another Cold War-style arms race with Russia, a unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty is the wrong way for Bush to pursue America’s agenda abroad.

We have long opposed abandoning the ABM treaty. A national missile defense has not yet been proven feasible, and many basic tests of the prototype systems have failed. A defense system will also be incredibly costly, and those costs come at a time when the Bush administration is seeking to curb expenditures on important and necessary antiterrorism measures. The administration already has suggested cutting a program to safeguard Russian nuclear material because it is too expensive. Sept. 11 showed that the greatest threat facing the U.S. is not a warhead on an ICBM, but a “dirty bomb” on a truck or a biological weapon in a backpack—and the limited defense budget Bush has proposed would be better spent on immediate threats.

But even if Bush is adamant on testing a new missile defense system, the ABM treaty should be amended rather than entirely dissolved. The pact has been amended before, and this process would be a far better option than the complete abandonment of a landmark agreement that has been the keystone of disarmament policy for decades. The progress made earlier this year on reducing American and Russian nuclear stockpiles appeared to be a step in the right direction, and we are confident that Bush could find a compromise with Putin to amend the treaty. Even if such a compromise is eventually reached, however, it seems that Bush has abandoned the route of negotiation.

Before the leak of Bush’s intended announcement, we had been encouraged at the warm post-Sept. 11 relations between America and Russia. Through a policy of “NATO at 20,” the U.S. is currently trying to help Russia build a friendlier relationship with NATO, the organization that was founded to contain the Soviet Union and limit its influence.

While the newfound closeness may be part of an effort to maintain good relations with Russia after abandoning the ABM treaty, a consultative NATO role for Russia should be encouraged. Russia is no longer an enemy of the U.S., and Russia’s cooperation in the war in Afghanistan testifies to its willingness and potential to become an important partner with the West.

Furthermore, America should do all it can to support the developing Russian democracy. Russia has not yet decided which path to follow, attempting at the same time to sell nuclear technologies to Iran and to sell oil to the West, to preserve its independence as a geopolitical power and to create stronger diplomatic ties, to pursue its war in Chechnya and to adopt international standards of human rights. Russia is not a firm American ally, and the U.S. must exercise caution as it seeks warmer relations. But giving Russia a consultative role and allowing it to join in the substantive international dialogue is a form of constructive engagement, and it offers the best chance for the U.S. to influence Russia in the right direction.

Back on the home front, Bush’s approval ratings are still astronomically high. But poll numbers do not give him license to pursue some of his poorly-conceived campaign promises, such as drilling in the Arctic or building a missile defense shield. Before Sept. 11, the American people were far from satisfied with Bush and his priorities. His popularity has drastically changed over the last two months, but there has been no indication that the argument for a missile defense has dramatically improved. Americans appreciate Bush’s firm leadership abroad, and he has the opportunity to do much more. But he must not construe widespread support for his present anti-terrorism campaign to represent unquestioning acceptance of his entire political agenda.