|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Plans I: Leaders Criticize, Hail Plans for National System Russia, China, South Korea, and Vietnam have criticized recently announced U.S. plans to field a national missile defense system in 2004, but Japan has expressed support as U.S. legislators consider whether to fund key programs, according to reports. Fielding a national missile defense system could “lead only to a weakening of strategic stability, to a senseless new arms race in the world,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement Wednesday (see GSN, Dec. 17). The ministry also warned that a U.S. missile defense system could divert resources from fighting terrorism. Cooperation between Russia and NATO should be the basis for “nonstrategic missile defense,” it says. “Moscow counts on the United States to pay priority attention to the realization of precisely this strategic partnership program agreed upon at the highest level and to enlist its friends and partners in it, not in a destabilizing race in strategic defensive arms,” the statement says (Russian Foreign Ministry release, Dec. 18). Chinese officials also voiced reservations about the U.S. plan yesterday. “We worry about the possible negative impact on regional stability of a missile defense system,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said. “We hope the relevant parties will act prudently,” he added. Officials did not specify what actions China plans to take in response. “China, in accordance with its national defense needs, will make the appropriate deployments,” Liu said (Ted Anthony, Associated Press/TBO.com, Dec. 19). Speaking in London, Chinese U.N. representative Sha Zukang said the planned missile defense system “will disrupt global strategic balance and stability.” Chinese leaders are wary of the Pentagon extending a missile defense system to Japan, South Korea or Taiwan, possibly using North Korea as an excuse, analysts in Beijing said (Willy Wo-Lap Lam, CNN.com, Dec. 19). Officials in Seoul, meanwhile, do not believe that a missile defense system would effectively counter North Korean military power, a South Korean official said, contradicting comments by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the system would be a deterrent to Pyongyang, which is alleged to harbor nuclear aspirations. “I don’t think it will sway Pyongyang,” the official said. “For geographical proximity, we are more concerned about North Korea’s conventional weapons,” he added (Agence France-Presse, Dec. 18). The U.S. announcement met with a lukewarm reaction from Vietnam yesterday, which called for a push toward disarmament. Vietnam is distressed “over actions which may lead to a new arms race,” said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Phan Thuy Thanh (Ted Anthony, Associated Press/Canoe Online CNews, Dec. 19). Japan Considers Joint Defense In Japan, defense chief Shigeru Ishiba said Monday that his country would consider developing and deploying a joint missile shield with the United States, the Japan Times reported (see GSN, Nov. 11). Ishiba told U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, that Japan would decide whether to advance beyond the countries’ current joint research, according to the Times. Some critics, however, have asked whether the plan would be financially feasible and whether it would violate the Japanese constitution (Japan Times, Dec. 18). U.S. Congress Offers Support, Criticism The Bush administration’s missile defense plan received bipartisan support and some Democratic criticism in Congress Wednesday. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) said the plan is sound but it requires greater funding, InsideDefense.com reported. “The threat we face from ballistic missiles — whether from rogue states or accidental launches — is real and current,” Lieberman said in a statement. “I support the administration’s decision because some kind of missile defense system — even a rudimentary one — is better than no system at all. But the administration’s plan is so limited at this point that it should not lull anyone into a false sense of security,” he added. Lieberman encouraged the White House to “go the rest of the way.” “Simply putting missile interceptors in the ground, as the administration proposes to do, won’t by itself get the job done. A successful missile defense system requires adequate funding for radar, a command and control system to link the system’s parts and an effective testing program, among other critical improvements,” he said (Daniel Dupont, InsideDefense.com, Dec. 18). Democrats will probably not vigorously oppose the plan, even though many important missile defense technologies have not been successfully tested, said House Armed Services Committee member John Spratt (D-S.C.). “This strikes us as a best first step to take,” he said. Many facets of the program have been delayed, however, and “we shouldn’t fool ourselves about the capacity of the system,” he added. The Bush administration has not said how much it will cost to field the system. The Defense Department plans to spend $16 billion on missile defense over the next two years, and the White House plans to ask Congress for another $3 billion to acquire a variety of missile interceptors, the Associated Press reported (Ken Guggenheim, Associated Press, Dec. 18). Congress will approve the missile defense plan, Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) predicted. “There will be a lot of debate. But in the end, I think Congress will do the right thing and support what the president wants,” he said. Weldon expressed support for other missile defense priorities, including the developing Airborne Laser (see GSN, Dec. 10) and sea-based defenses against cruise missiles (see GSN, July 10; Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, Dec. 19). Some Democrats criticized the president’s plan for a national missile defense system, highlighting its undeveloped technology (see GSN, Dec. 18). The effort “violates common sense by determining to deploy systems before they have been tested and shown to work,” said Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the outgoing chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “This deployment will do little to increase our national security,” Levin said. “With the exception of the Patriot system, which has been tested against theater ballistic missiles, the systems to be fielded will lack important components required for an effective defense. Neither the interceptor nor the radar to be used with the new national missile defense system has ever been tested against any ballistic missile target at all. Under the normal acquisition process for all weapons programs, we have insisted, until now, that systems be tested and demonstrated to be operationally effective before a deployment decision is made,” he added (Dupont, InsideDefense.com, Dec. 18).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
