Real Threats, Realistic Responses
In a world threatened by terrorists and mass destruction, old-fashioned arms control is still a good weapon
By John Isaacs
Oct. 2, 2001
WASHINGTON -- The September 11 attacks should remind us all that, as catastrophic as casualties were, weapons of mass destruction remain the most serious threat to U.S. and world security. There is a real possibility that next attack could involve chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons -- if the terrorists can gain access to them. This makes it all the more critical that the Bush administration work every avenue to reduce that threat.
As the Bush administration has learned since the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the United States cannot deal with terrorism, or national security in general, through a unilateral approach. Only multilateral efforts can limit access to weapons of mass destruction. The first steps include reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to the lowest possible level by negotiating, signing, and ratifying the START III treaty, approving a protocol that strengthens the verification and enforcement provisions of the Biological Weapons Convention, and seeking Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Because of the enormous U.S. and Russian arsenals, high priority should be placed on working closely with Moscow to advance our mutual interests in combating terrorism, reduce and safeguard nuclear weapons and prevent the proliferation of weapons and materials to other countries and groups. More money should be put towards these efforts.
In the campaign against terrorism, Russia can provide significant intelligence, logistics and staging areas. However, a unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty could seriously jeopardize Russian cooperation. President Bush should abide by the ABM treaty and stop threatening to abrogate it in order to deploy a national anti-missile system.
At the same time, the administration should not spend hundreds of billions of dollars in the frantic pursuit of a national missile defense that does not work. National missile defense is no more feasible today than it was September 10, the day before the terrorists
struck. Experts have repeatedly warned that attacks by terrorists smuggling weapons across our borders or bombing key buildings is a far greater threat than “rogue states” launching missiles with a return address. Recent events have proved them correct.
When Congress considers the annual defense spending bills, it should significantly reduce the administration’s request for $8.3 billion for missile defense. The Senate Armed Service Committee's earlier decision -- since abandoned -- to cut $1.3 from the 2002 missile defense budget and allocate those funds to other military accounts, including anti-terrorism, was a good start.
But spending on other measures that relate directly to future terrorist attacks also should be increased, including the strengthening of airport security, putting marshals on airplanes, improving customs control, increasing human intelligence and adding funds to U.S.-Russian nuclear threat reduction programs. These steps now should have a much
higher priority than spending hundreds of billions of dollars on an unproven technology for missile defense to meet the least likely threats.
Congress has been acting in a bi-partisan manner in support of President Bush by focusing on the terrorist crisis. It would be both a mistake and a diversion from the crisis to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and to deploy a national missile defense that is not ready. Such action could destroy the international coalition against terrorism, and that is the last thing America needs at a time when terrorists wielding unconventional weapons present a clear and present danger.
John Isaacs is president of the Council for a Livable World in Washington, DC.
(Copyright 2001, Global Beat Syndicate, 418 Lafayette Street, Suite 554, New York, NY 10003 http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate).