U.S. to Scrap Antiballistic Missile Pact

President Bush formally announced Thursday that the United States will withdraw from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, a Cold War cornerstone of nuclear stability, and he predicted that the United States’ relations with Russia would not suffer as a result.

It is the first time since the beginning of the Nuclear Age that a major arms control agreement is being scrapped.

As it seeks to develop a program to protect the nation from missile attack, the Bush administration had two choices: gain Russia’s approval for new weapons testing, which the treaty prohibits, or give the required six months’ notice that the United States was withdrawing from the pact. Having failed at the first, the president chose the second.

And by doing so, Bush took a major diplomatic gamble that European allies--on whom he is counting for continued support in his anti-terror campaign in Afghanistan and perhaps beyond--will not be concerned that he may be embarking on a new arms race. A statement from the French government described the treaty as “a crucial element in the strategic stability of recent years.”

Russian President Vladimir V. Putin expressed only mild disapproval of the U.S. action Thursday, calling the widely anticipated decision “a mistake.”

Bush presented his national missile defense system as a critical component of his plan to protect against a terrorist missile attack, not any Russian threat.

Seeking to ease Moscow’s concerns, Bush drew on the experience of Sept. 11, when hijacked airliners were flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. “The greatest threats to both our countries come not from each other, or other big powers in the world, but from terrorists who strike without warning, or rogue states who seek weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

“I cannot and will not allow the United States to remain in a treaty that prevents us from developing effective defenses.”

Leading Democratic foreign policy experts were harsh in their criticism.

‘A Christmas Present for the Right Wing’

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Bush’s decision was likely to lead to a cycle of development of offensive and defensive weapons, “and that kind of arms race would not make us more secure.”

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, questioned whether it was “a Christmas present for the right wing, who dislike arms control under any circumstances.”

But Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations panel, said Bush “has done what must be done: moved another step forward toward the deployment of a missile defense system.”

The future of the arms control treaty has been at the center of discussions between Bush and Putin, most recently at the president’s Texas ranch last month. The two agreed, Bush said, “that my decision to withdraw from the treaty will not, in any way, undermine our new relationship or Russian security.”

Yet the new course signals a stark departure from a path developed to maintain nuclear equilibrium. It also reflects the extent to which the two leaders are working to help each other in a new global political climate in which Cold War animosities appear ever more distant.

“The ABM [treaty] basically kept the peace and defined the U.S.-Soviet relationship for 30 years, and in a period of transition helped preserve the U.S.-Russian relationship,” said Jon Wolfsthal, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Without it, there are no rules. The direction of the U.S.-Russian relationship is uncertain, and the consequences for the global nonproliferation regime are potentially disastrous.”

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said the revocation of the treaty would not spark an arms race, the most widely feared consequence.

“Quite the contrary,” he said. “The Russians have said they don’t see this as a threat to their national security.”

Alexander Vershbow, the American ambassador in Moscow, delivered formal notification of the U.S. withdrawal to the Russian Foreign Ministry early Thursday.

Treaty Seen in 1972 as Maintaining a Balance

When it was completed, the treaty was seen on both sides of the Cold War divide as crucial to maintaining a nuclear balance because it blocked the United States and the Soviet Union from building a missile shield that provided protection from nuclear attack. It allowed only sharply restricted, rudimentary defenses.

The United States is hoping to begin construction six months from now of a command and testing facility in Alaska. Because it would be designed to test a system covering the entire country, such a facility would violate the treaty provisions. The tests of interceptor rockets that the Pentagon has been conducting for several years do not violate the treaty.

As the United States and Russia wrestle with the future of defensive weapons, they are separately promising to reduce by approximately two-thirds their arsenals of offensive nuclear weapons. Bush has talked about reducing U.S. nuclear warheads to a range of 1,700 to 2,200, and Putin on Thursday spoke of a range of 1,500 to 2,200.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said the administration would work with the Russians to formalize an agreement on reduced levels of weapons and on a program to verify compliance.

The administration did its best to minimize negative reaction. Powell reviewed Bush’s plans with Russian leaders in Moscow earlier in the week. The president expressed support for a Russian role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and thanked Putin for his support in the Afghanistan war.

The announcement itself was orchestrated in what a senior Bush aide called “ping-pong-ping”: Bush spoke in the morning; Putin, forewarned, delivered his response two hours later; and Powell followed up with a response. The administration said the tone of Putin’s response was positive.

Administration officials spent much of the past year seeking an agreement that would allow development of a missile defense system to proceed. The Russians would not budge, a senior administration official said, because “more of them were gripped by old thinking than us.” In addition, Putin was faced with opposition from the military and conservative politicians.

*

Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this report.