Clinton Shelves Missile Defense

President Clinton announced Friday that he will leave the decision on deployment of a national missile shield to his successor, averting for now a potential diplomatic crisis and propelling the controversial program to a murky future.

Clinton said that even though the nation faces a growing threat from long-range missiles, he lacks the “absolute confidence” he would need to deploy a system that would place existing arms control agreements in jeopardy and possibly trigger an arms race.

Though the new technology is “promising, the system as a whole is not yet proven,” Clinton said in remarks at Georgetown University. “We should not move forward unless we have absolute confidence the system will work.”

The country and the world would be better off, Clinton argued, “if we explore the frontiers of strategic defenses while continuing to pursue arms control, to stand with our allies and to work with Russia and others to stop the spread of deadly weapons.”

Clinton’s decision addresses an issue that has strained American relations with allies and potential adversaries and set off a sharp political debate at home.

The proposed missile shield, consisting of sophisticated sensors and ground-based interceptor rockets, would attempt to defend the nation against a small-scale missile attack by “rogue” countries such as North Korea, Iran or Iraq. The heir to Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” initiative, it could cost an estimated $60 billion if fully developed.

The current program has been denounced by Russia and China as a threat to arms-control treaties and the half-century-old system of mutual deterrence. Many of America’s European allies have raised strenuous objections as well.

The president’s decision means that the administration will not take initial steps this winter to build a system in Alaska. The Pentagon had said that it needed to sign contracts late this year to start construction next spring of a radar installation on the Aleutian island of Shemya to meet a target date of 2005 for deploying a limited antimissile system.

Although Clinton asserted that his move will not delay or hinder his successor, he acknowledged that recent technological snags, including the failure of a key flight test on July 7, make it unlikely that the system can be deployed before 2006 or 2007 at the earliest.

Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the main contenders to replace Clinton, have each said that they intend to spend time studying the issue if elected. Those intentions make it almost certain that any deployment order will be pushed off for months, if not years, analysts said.

Though Clinton insisted that a missile shield still can be one ingredient in a broad security strategy, his comments stressed the risks and uncertainties of the proposed system.

Missile defense advocates denounced his decision, while some arms control advocates said that it was more favorable to their views than they had expected.

“It took a long time for this system to build up the momentum it had today, and Clinton killed it,” said Jack Spencer, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. “This is horrible.”

Some arms control advocates said they were surprised Clinton would make a decision that could open his vice president to attacks that the administration is soft on national security.

However, John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, an arms control advocacy group in Washington, said: “We commend the president for making the sensible decision, despite election year calls for immediate deployment.”

Gore, who has dodged questions on the issue in the past, strongly endorsed Clinton’s approach. He said that he believes the threat of missile attack is real but thinks the country needs more time to test the technology and to develop a broader consensus about what kind of system would be best.

Noting that 16 of 19 flight tests remain, Gore said he welcomes “the opportunity to be more certain that these technologies actually work together properly.”

Bush, who has urged Clinton to leave the decision to his successor, said in a statement that the deferral is more evidence that the administration is weak on national defense.

The move “underscores the fact that for seven years the Clinton-Gore administration has failed to strengthen America’s defenses,” Bush said.

The statement said Bush intends to “develop and deploy an effective defensive missile system at the earliest possible date to protect American citizens from accidental launches or blackmail by rogue nations.”

But though he expressed urgency, Bush previously has said he wants a system that could protect both the United States and its allies and wants to explore the idea of space-based and sea-based systems. Such an ambitious approach would likely take longer to bear fruit, analysts say.

Clinton previously had said that he would consider four factors in deciding on deployment: technological feasibility, estimated cost, diplomatic effects and consequences for arms control agreements.

In Friday’s remarks, he did not address the issue of cost. But he indicated that a postponement will be advantageous from the standpoint of the other three criteria.

Until now, Pentagon officials largely had dismissed the arguments of critics that the system could be rendered useless if incoming missiles contained decoys, such as balloons. But in his remarks, Clinton said such countermeasures are a real threat and merit serious analysis.

The countermeasure issue “has left questions to be resolved,” Clinton said.

He noted that two of the three initial flight tests failed and that development of a planned booster rocket to lift the interceptor “kill vehicle” remains untested because of delays.

“I simply cannot conclude, with the information I have today, that we have enough confidence in the technology and the operational effectiveness of the entire . . . system to move forward to deployment,” he said.

At the same time, Clinton said that the program has made “substantial progress,” and he directed the Pentagon to continue a “robust” development effort.

Critics of the program have argued that fielding a system actually could weaken U.S. security if it caused the United States to abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. The Richard Nixon-era treaty seeks to guarantee nuclear deterrence by sharply limiting U.S. and Russian antimissile defenses.

Opponents have argued too that deploying a system could cause China to increase its nuclear arsenal, which now consists of about 20 missiles. That, in turn, might trigger an arms race throughout South Asia, U.S. intelligence analysts have warned.

Clinton appeared to acknowledge these arguments, saying that “the elements of our strategy could never be allowed to undermine one another.”

“They must reinforce one another,” he said, including through the “profoundly important dimension of arms control.”

While asserting that no country should have a veto over U.S. national security plans, he said that the views of North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies are a “critical diplomatic consideration” in the missile defense decision. Since key elements of the system would be based in Europe--including radar in England--”we must have their support,” he said.

Clinton’s decision won favorable reaction abroad.

“U.S. President Bill Clinton’s decision not to take upon himself the responsibility for deploying the national antimissile defense system is seen in Russia as a well-thought-out and responsible step,” President Vladimir V. Putin said in a statement released in Moscow.

British Foreign Minister Robin Cook praised Clinton for a decision that “has taken careful account of the views of the United States’ allies and international partners.” French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine said that Clinton’s decision is “wise and reasonable,” his spokeswoman said.

But Clinton’s move drew a strong negative reaction from some congressional Republicans, who have been a primary force driving the missile defense program for years.

“The Flat Earth Society strikes again,” said Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.). Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) called the move “a capstone to a string of poor decisions that have left us defenseless against a growing threat.”

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, a Republican and perhaps the administration’s strongest advocate of a national missile defense system, issued a statement supporting Clinton’s decision.

“The president’s statement today underscores the importance of having the next president fully involved in decisions regarding the future of the program before committing the United States to a deployment strategy,” Cohen said.

While Bush’s statement suggests that the Republican campaign will seek to use the Clinton decision against Gore, several analysts predicted that the effect on Gore would be minimal.

Despite efforts by Republicans to emphasize the missile threat in recent elections, polling has shown little public concern among the broad electorate.

Carroll J. Dougherty, an opinion analyst at the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in Washington, said the issue of missile defense, like military readiness in general, “has been a pretty low priority” with the public, ranking far below education, Medicare and Social Security.

*

Times staff writers James Gerstenzang in Washington and Michael Finnegan in Lafayette, La., contributed to this story.