Bush Was Right to Abandon Treaty

Opponents of President Bush’s decision to withdraw from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty have called it the cornerstone of strategic stability. Yet the foundation beneath that cornerstone collapsed 10 years ago along with the Soviet Union. Today, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technology, along with multiple threats to our homeland, blind adherence to the ABM treaty could make it our national gravestone.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, rogue nations such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea, ravenous for any advantage against the U.S., have feasted on opportunities to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. These regimes already may be able to launch a missile that could strike the U.S. or our allies with a nuclear warhead. They will certainly have that capability in a few years.

As long as our nation is vulnerable to nuclear threats from the likes of Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein and the ayatollahs of Tehran, we also will be vulnerable to blackmail, intimidation and other efforts to influence our foreign policy.

The ABM treaty was created when the U.S. had one real enemy: the Soviet Union. But deterrence alone is no longer an effective strategy when the world is tainted by unpredictable tyrants and terrorists who are difficult to target and have little concern for human life, or when an unauthorized or accidental launch of a missile occurs.

Yet some Chicken Littles in Washington warn that the sky will fall now that the president has decided to withdraw from the treaty, saying that China will be forced to build more nuclear missiles and an arms race will ensue in South Asia. This argument doesn’t pass the laugh test. Communist China has been modernizing its nuclear forces for years and will continue to do so regardless of our missile defense policy. Worse, it is Beijing that is spreading instability by proliferating dangerous technologies to Pakistan--in violation of international agreements--and to rogue states in the Middle East.

Others argue that missile defense is a waste of money, that the technology won’t work and that we should spend scarce dollars on other threats.

This year, the federal government spent less than $2 billion on national missile defenses, which is one-fifth of what we spend annually on counter-terrorism and less than 1% of the Pentagon’s annual budget. The president’s request added about $3 billion to these efforts. A series of tests--including one Dec. 3--has proven our ability to “hit a bullet with a bullet.”

Some have urged the president not to scrap the treaty but to “stretch” it so that testing and development of missile defenses can go forward while the treaty remains intact. This is not plausible. The treaty severely constrains testing and contains no provisions to allow violations of the treaty by mutual consent. The bottom line is that the ABM treaty is prohibiting important tests of our most promising systems and impairing our ability to have a rudimentary missile defense ready by 2004--when the threats posed by some rogue states are expected to mature.

President Bush has done an extraordinary job of convincing the Russians of the shared threats we face. Several senior Russian officials--including President Vladimir V. Putin--have already stated the U.S. decision doesn’t threaten Russia’s security, won’t affect our mutual efforts to make deep cuts in their nuclear stockpile and will not undermine Russia’s new relationship with the U.S. Most of our allies recognize these facts and do--or will--support this decision.

The events of Sept. 11 demonstrated that we shouldn’t underestimate our enemies and that we must defend against all threats. The president has done the right thing by announcing our withdrawal from the treaty and setting U.S.-Russia relations on a new and positive strategic footing.

Congress should not pursue political chicanery to obstruct him.

*

Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) is the ranking GOP member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.