By Daniel M Pourkesali, Virginia (Campaign Iran)
American President George W. Bush used
his platform at the G8 summit to continue spreading the paranoia of fearing
states like Iran and North Korea as they are bent on bringing death and
destruction to the world and pose a grave threat to international
security. In speech after speech countering Russian objections to the
so-called American 'Missile Defense Shield' in Europe, Mr. Bush claimed that the
two remaining members of the "axis of evil" must be confronted by the
'international community' before it is too late and that in order to defend
Europe against these "rogue states", America must be allowed to forge ahead with
implementing its Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system
there.
For those not
familiar with the BMD, it is supposed to intercept Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles (ICBM's) in mid-flight using Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) missiles
that track incoming armaments and disable them while still in flight. There is
one major problem -- no such interceptor program currently under development has
ever been tested successfully [1] despite years of research forcing the U.S.
military to conduct "scripted" tests using "surrogate" interceptors [2] against
artificially slow moving targets with pre-known flight paths in order to give
the false impression that the program actually works. A real missile traveling
at much higher speed and not broadcasting its coordinates can probably evade it
altogether. But aside from technical challenges that may be good enough reason
to stay out of such American plans, the political repercussions far outweigh any
benefits.
A far more
compelling argument almost never mentioned by anyone in the media is that
cooperating in implementing such a system, functional or not, would be against
international law because missile defense programs are prohibited under the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) signed between the United States and Russia
in 1972. The treaty prohibits either side from constructing such a system for
the simple reason that they are perceived and indeed are offensive rather than
defensive in nature especially when deployed outside one's territory half way
across the world.
A properly
deployed and working missile shield allows one country to launch a nuclear first
strike against another, while protecting itself from any retaliatory counter
strike which is why international reaction to such a system has been almost
uniformly negative. Russian President Vladimir Putin is on the record [3]
stating that "if the US proceeds to void the ABM treaty, [Russia] will withdraw
from the whole system of treaty relations having to do with the limitation and
control of nuclear arms". Thus Mr. Bush's assurances ring
hollow with Putin as well as the rest of the global community wary of the new
American grand strategy aiming at dismantling international laws and
non-proliferation efforts such as ABM and Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT)
in order to secure its own hegemony.
Articles I and
II of the NPT prohibits the non-nuclear states from attempting to acquire
nuclear weapons or aid other nations in acquiring such technology. In return,
the five nuclear armed states namely U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China
agreed under article VI to deemphasize nuclear weapons in their security
doctrines and enter into negotiations in good faith with each other to
significantly reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear arsenals. It was
also understood that non-nuclear states would always have the option to withdraw
from the treaty and acquire nuclear weapons if they felt threatened by the more
powerful, nuclear armed states.
But the
current administration in Washington has ushered in a whole new chapter in
American foreign policy threatening every international security agreement
reached in the last four decades. In 2001, the Pentagon produced a new policy
document called the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) [4], stating openly for the
first time that America would not only not reduce and eliminate but rather
continue to rely heavily on nuclear weapons for its security and would actually
modernize its existing arsenal. It recommended a radical shift from past
policies of "nuclear deterrence", under which nuclear weapons were to be used
only for retaliation against a nuclear attack, to one of preemptive nuclear
first strike. North Korea and Iran were specifically mentioned as nations that
could be attacked with nuclear weapons. This policy effectively abolished prior
security agreements by reserving the right to drop nuclear bombs on North Korea
and Iran regardless of whether or not they possessed nuclear weapons.
The NPR also
promoted the development of new "mini-nukes" and "bunker-busters" weapons to be
used in these "counter-proliferation" strikes. It urged Congress to lift the ban
on nuclear testing so that these new weapons could be developed and old ones
could be upgraded and modernized in order to project U.S. nuclear superiority
far into the future. It also emphasized that U.S. should work at developing a
missile defense system to counter any "rogue states". The new policy openly
violated every single relevant component of the Non-Proliferation Treaty as well
as disregarding the terms of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
The effects of
this new policy have been catastrophic. The open rejection of disarmament has
provided incentive for other nuclear powered nations, especially Russia and
China, to continue modernizing their own arsenals while shunning any disarmament
efforts. Denouncing American rejection of its obligations under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, they have hinted that if the U.S. does not discard the
doctrine of preemptive nuclear first strike and missile defense system, they
would be left with no choice but to engage in a new nuclear arms race. At the
same time, non-nuclear nations, especially those levied with unjust sanctions
and threats of nuclear annihilation, feel they can no longer rely on NPT or
United Nations to guarantee their security.
This
arrogantly dangerous and hypocritical policy of 'do as I say and not as I do' is
clearly what has become the hallmark of the new world Empire. In his book
'Pirates and Emperors' [5], Noam Chomsky tells a story of a captured pirate who
was brought before Alexander the Great. "How dare you molest the sea?" asked
Alexander. "How dare you molest the whole world?" the pirate replied: "Because I
do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great
navy, are called an emperor."
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A700-2004Dec15.html
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58080-2004Sep28.html
[3] http://www.nspipeace.org/issues/nuclearweapons/nuclear_alert_6.shtml
[4] http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/95_npr.htm
[5] http://www.amazon.com/Pirates-Emperors-Old-New-International/dp/0896086852
... Payvand News - 6/8/07 ... --