 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Why Should the 'Anti-Ballistic MissileTreaty' be Maintained?
Director General of the Department of Arms Control and Disarmament under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Beijing Renmin Ribao (Internet Version) in Chinese
19 November 1999
(FBIS Translated Text)
Twenty-seven years ago, the United States and Soviet Union signed the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty," effectively controlling the trend of unrestricted development of nuclear weapons. Today the United States has made every attempt to revise the treaty, drawing strong responses from around the world. Nuclear arms race may rise again from the ashes.
On 5 November, the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, which is responsible for disarmament and international security, adopted for the first time the resolution "Maintaining and Abiding by the 'Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty,'" jointly put forward by China, Russia, and Belarus. The resolution urged signatories of the treaty not to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system that protects the entire territory of a nation, stressed that an anti-ballistic missile system will disrupt global strategic stability, and supported the international community's further efforts to maintain the treaty's inviolability and integrity. The resolution demonstrated the international community's will and determination to oppose relevant countries' attempt to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system and to revise the "'Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty." The resolution has profound practical significance and far-reaching historical significance.
'Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty' Cornerstone for Maintaining Global Strategic Balance and Stability, and Therefore It Is Not Allowed To Be Weakened
The "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" was reached in 1972 between the United States and the former Soviet Union. The core stipulation of the treaty is prohibiting the two superpowers from deploying a strategic missile defense system that protects the entire territory of a nation, in order to maintain the two countries' offensive and defensive forces at a relative balance and stability. Only on this basis were the two countries able to begin carrying out nuclear arms control and disarmament talks. Since the end of the Cold War, the effectiveness of the treaty has not weakened -- on an anti-ballistic missile system, the treaty has enabled signatories of the treaty to restrain each other, making it possible for the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear weapons, and has provided a necessary security framework for pushing forward multilateral nuclear disarmament. Therefore, despite the fact that the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" is a bilateral treaty, since it was signed, it has been the cornerstone for maintaining global strategic balance and stability. Its important role in maintaining global strategic stability, advancing nuclear disarmament, and ensuring international security, has been recognized by all countries.
Purpose of US Attempt To Revise Treaty Is To Remove Legal Obstacle to Its Development of National Missile Defense [NMD] System
Recently, the development of some negative international situations has brought the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" to face a severe challenge. To seek its own absolute security and strategic superiority, the United States has forcefully developed a NMD system, and, together with a very small number of countries, has speeded up research and development of an advanced theater missile defense [TMD] system. These plans not only run counter to the purpose and objective of the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty," but also directly violate the core provisions of the treaty. The real intention of the United States in repeatedly asking for revising the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" is to clear up the legal obstacle to its development and deployment of a NMD system, in order to make its move legal. It can be asserted that once the treaty is revised, it will likely be revised again and again in the future due to alleged changes in the situation, and the final consequence will be abolishment of the treaty. Then the treaty will exist only in name and become a useless scrap of paper. This should not arouse the international community's vigilance and grave concern.
Revising 'Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty,' Developing NMD System Will Produce Extensive and Far-Reaching Negative Effect
First, it will produce a grave negative effect on global strategic balance and stability. Since the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" was reached, it has been the cornerstone for maintaining global strategic balance and stability. Revising the treaty and developing an anti-missile system will disrupt global strategic balance, lead to another round of the arms race, and very greatly threaten world and regional stability.
History shows that security has always been mutual. Only by establishing its own security on the basis of the common security of all countries can a country be truly secure. The foundation of security should be mutual trust between countries and common interests of all countries. Relying on one's economic and technological superiority, forcefully developing an anti-missile system, and using force or threatening to use force at every turn in international affairs -- such a way to seek absolute military superiority and attempting to build one's own security on the basis of jeopardizing other countries' security does not contribute to alleviating the international situation; on the contrary, it will disrupt the global strategic balance and stability and make all countries feel insecure. In a world in which everybody feels insecure, every country will seek all kinds of means to protect itself, military factors will play a bigger role in international relations, and huge amounts of financial resources and materials that ought to be used for economic development will have to be used for armament development. Under such circumstances, which country can enjoy real security and how can the world stay stable?
Second, it will seriously impede the nuclear disarmament process. Relative stability of the balance of power between major powers of the world and global strategic stability based on this balance of power are the precondition for nuclear disarmament. Once this balance and stability are broken, the nuclear disarmament process will stop or even reverse.
Mutual restraint on anti-missile system between signatories of the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" has created necessary conditions for them to reduce offensive strategic weapons and provided an assurance for pushing forward the process of nuclear disarmament. It is because of this treaty and progress in a series of talks on "START" that the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" was extended indefinitely, that the "Treaty on Complete Ban of Nuclear Testing" was signed, and that an understanding was reached on holding talks on the "Treaty on Prohibiting Production of Fission Materials for Nuclear Weapons Use" ("Treaty on Production Ban"). The international community should maintain this trend and speed up the nuclear disarmament process. If individual countries insist on making substantive revision to the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" in order to make deployment of an anti-missile system legal, then the precondition of strategic stability will be gone and the security environment will greatly change. Under such circumstances, who can guarantee that treaties reached will continue to be implemented and understandings reached will not be changed? And who can guarantee that treaty talks to be conducted will be carried out smoothly?
Nuclear disarmament is inseparable from a general international environment of peace, security, stability, and trust. Forcefully developing and proliferating an advanced missile defense system obviously will not contribute to international nuclear disarmament efforts; on the contrary, it will poison the atmosphere and destroy the conditions needed for nuclear disarmament process and breed the danger of triggering an arms race at a higher level. The US-Russia nuclear disarmament process has come to a stop and the prospects of multilateral nuclear disarmament efforts are also hard to predict. Under such circumstances, the international community should even more firmly adhere to the fundamental objective of completely banning and thoroughly destroying nuclear weapons. Once nuclear weapons are destroyed, there will not be nuclear proliferation, nor will there be proliferation of long-range missiles, and a missile threat will no longer exist. Therefore, fundamentally speaking, to reduce threat to peace, greater disarmament efforts should be made, not the other way. Under the current circumstances, stopping attempts to revise or violate the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" and maintaining its integrity and effectiveness is extremely important to maintaining the nuclear disarmament momentum and to pushing the nuclear disarmament process forward.
Third, it will harm international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. Nuclear disarmament is the precondition for nuclear-free countries to honor their nuclear-free commitment. Revising the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" will make development and deployment of an anti-missile system legal, hence, the precondition and foundation of nuclear disarmament will no longer exist. Under such circumstances, who can guarantee that no other countries will break their nuclear-free commitment? Using large amounts of missiles in Kosovo by major military powers fully indicates the military capability of missiles in today's world. This was practically the best advertisement for this kind of weapon. In this sense, those who proliferate missiles are just those military powers who always talk about missile proliferation prevention.
It also should be pointed out that, because missile technology and anti-missile technology are related to each other, many technologies and equipment used for anti-missile system can be used to develop and improve offensive missiles. Therefore, developing an anti-missile system not only will not stop missile proliferation, but will increase the risk of missile proliferation and make the "Regime of Proliferation of Missiles and Their Technology," which is not very useful, even more useless.
For this reason, the international community has a responsibility to take all kinds of measures to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" in order to ensure that the treaty will remain the cornerstone for maintaining global strategic stability and pressing nuclear disarmament ahead. This year, the UN General Assembly included maintenance of the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" on its agenda -- this fully indicated the importance attached to this issue by the international community. As one of the nations tabling the resolution, China will join other countries in making continued and unremitting efforts to achieve the objectives of nuclear disarmament, and to maintain world peace, security, and stability.
This
material is produced independently for NTI by the James Martin
Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of
International Studies and does not necessarily reflect the
opinions of and has not been independently verified by NTI or
its directors, officers, employees, agents. Copyright © 2007 by
MIIS.
