Plan to Quit ABM Treaty Called Timely

President Bush’s decision to withdraw from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty with the Russians was a masterstroke of timing that has confounded critics of his missile defense program and greatly improves the odds that the controversial system will be built, opponents and supporters of the system agreed Wednesday.

Analysts on both sides of the issue concurred that Bush, by moving during a war that has strengthened his support at home and abroad, helped ensure that opposition to pulling out of the treaty will be muted.

As Bush prepared for a speech today in which he is expected to formally announce the move, there were already signs that the treaty’s abrogation would bring only limited protests from Russia and Europe. And although some congressional Democrats announced plans to challenge spending for the multibillion-dollar defense program, some lawmakers and other critics conceded that they would be waging an uphill fight.

John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, an arms control advocacy group, said critics would have to try to delay the project, while hoping for a new president in 2005. But if Bush is reelected, he added, “it’s going to be very hard to stop a deployment.”

The proposed missile defense system has been controversial in the U.S. for years because of questions about its cost--which could range from tens to hundreds of billions of dollars, depending on its scope--and about whether it would work or is even relevant to the threats now facing the country.

Bush administration officials have been staunch advocates of missile defense, but such a system would violate the ABM treaty. Bush has been threatening to withdraw from the Nixon-era treaty since the start of his presidential campaign, and this week he began putting out the word that the United States will give the Russians notice of plans to withdraw.

The treaty was designed to restrain a further arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union by sharply limiting the size of the systems that could be built to shoot down incoming missiles.

Although the Russians have argued that the treaty is a cornerstone of nuclear stability, the Bush team has called it a Cold War relic. U.S. officials have contended that the treaty holds back the two countries at a time when they urgently need to develop limited antimissile systems to protect against the threat that might be posed by such “rogue” nations as North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

Bush administration officials have been pushing the Russians to work out a comprehensive nuclear arms deal in which both sides would reduce their offensive arsenals to between 1,500 and 2,000 deployed warheads, while loosening treaty rules so that the Pentagon could proceed with the antimissile system tests now barred by the treaty.

Some analysts thought the Americans could work out a deal that would permit broader testing but leave the general structure of the treaty in place. And they predicted that Bush would refrain from dumping the treaty, lest it rupture relations with a new ally the U.S. badly needs in the war against terrorism.

But after more than four months of trying to negotiate a deal, administration officials told their Russian counterparts that they intended to announce the withdrawal Dec. 13. On Friday, Bush told Russian President Vladimir V. Putin of his plans, even as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met in Moscow with Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov to discuss the subject.

Tom Collina of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an arms control advocacy group, said it might appear strange for Bush to want to abandon the treaty during war, when the U.S. would seem to want to avoid diplomatic friction.

Bush’s political support, however, is now strong and Americans are feeling vulnerable, he said. It is also a time when Russia is showing that it wants to be associated with the U.S. and when other countries may be reluctant to stand up to the leader of a successful anti-terrorism coalition.

“I see this as a carefully calculated political maneuver to do something that they don’t have to do now, and really shouldn’t do now,” Collina said.

A senior administration official said U.S. negotiators had discussed “any number” of arrangements with the Russians that would have permitted the two countries to continue in the treaty. “I’m amazed that we didn’t reach agreement,” he said.

He said the Russians clung to the idea of the treaty’s value. And he acknowledged that it would have been difficult for Putin to publicly abandon the pact because of domestic criticism that the Russian government has already given up too much to the American side on bilateral issues.

“Politically, it’s easier for Putin to say, ‘I don’t agree with this, but the Americans have the right to do it,’ ” said the official, who requested anonymity.

Even so, the official predicted that the Russians “will get over it.” And he insisted that the U.S.-Russian relationship is strong and founded on common interests in a number of areas.

Indeed, the initial Russian reaction was cool but muted.

Touring Brazil, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail M. Kasyanov said Moscow regretted the move. He acknowledged the U.S. right to withdraw but said Russia still believes in a deal on a modified treaty.

Kasyanov said his nation supports the treaty for the sake of strategic stability, not because Moscow’s defenses would be weakened by the U.S. withdrawal.

Speculating on what steps Russia might take in response to the Bush announcement, the chairman of that nation’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee, Dmitri Rogozin, warned that Moscow could renounce the START I and START II treaties. He said Putin in recent weeks had discussed Russia’s response to the expected withdrawal with the foreign affairs committee.

China, with a nuclear arsenal small enough to be overwhelmed by a limited U.S. antimissile system, said today that the U.S. plans are cause for concern, and it called for talks on the issue, the Reuters news agency reported.

“We’ve taken note of the relevant reports and express our concern,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue told a news conference in Beijing.

“China is not in favor of missile defense systems. China worries about the negative impact,” said Zhang, who called for a “strategic dialogue” on the issue.

Missile defense critics have predicted that the U.S. move would encourage the Chinese to accelerate plans to expand their arsenal. And that could cause other Asian countries, including India and Pakistan, to dangerously increase theirs, they said.

In Congress, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he would seek legislation early next year to deny funding for any missile tests that violated the ABM treaty unless Congress voted to approve them.

Levin predicted that “unilateral withdrawal will likely lead to an action-reaction cycle in offensive and defensive technologies, including countermeasures, and that kind of arms race would not make us more secure.”

Earlier, however, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) conceded that there was nothing Congress could do to directly block Bush’s action, because the president has the authority to unilaterally pull out of a treaty. But he said he was weighing legal and legislative options, including possible efforts to limit federal funding.

Deployment of a missile defense system, if successfully developed, is still years off.

Though the Bush administration is exploring what design it will use, the most rudimentary system could not be fielded before 2004 or 2005.

*

Times staff writers Janet Hook in Washington, Robyn Dixon in Moscow and Henry Chu in Beijing contributed to this report.