October 28, 2001	Sunday	Shaba'an 10, 1422

LONDON: The silky, clown-like suits sported at photocalls by George Bush and Vladimir Putin at last weekend’s Shanghai summit of Asian and Pacific nations were misleading. Behind the scenes, the US and Russian leaders were pursuing a deadly serious deal on America’s national missile defence plans. And that is definitely no joke.

This ‘understanding’ could effectively end - before it really started - the debate on the biggest upheaval in global military strategy since the doctrine of mutual assured destruction evolved. Its implications may be much longer-lasting than the current obsession with international terrorism.

Although Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, is playing down the prospect, a watershed announcement on NMD could come when Putin visits Washington and Bush’s ranch at Crawford, Texas, next month. If all goes to plan, Russia will agree to ‘amendments’ to the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty to allow expanded NMD testing to begin next spring. In return, the US will withdraw, for now at least, its threat to abrogate the ABM treaty unilaterally.

For Bush the issue remains a simple one. He came to office pledged to build NMD to defend the US against the threat supposedly represented by ‘rogue states’ such as North Korea, Iran, Libya and Iraq. The theory is that they could fire ballistic missiles at the US armed with chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Before Sept 11, Bush described this threat as the biggest single security challenge facing the US.

The fact that this strategic analysis was proven emphatically - and disastrously - wrong by the attacks on New York and Washington has done nothing to change Bush’s mind. The fact that some of those very same ‘rogue states’, notably Iran, are being distinctly helpful in the ‘war on terrorism’ has made no appreciable difference to administration thinking. Nor, it seems, has the obvious consideration that NMD could do nothing to prevent future Sept 11-style atrocities in the mainland US.

Aware of his nation’s heightened sensitivity to any kind of security threat, however far-fetched, Bush has seized the chance to fast-forward his NMD agenda. He knows, too, that Democrats in Congress previously opposed to NMD have been forced to swallow their misgivings in the current war atmosphere.

“The events of Sept 11 make it clearer than ever that a Cold war ABM treaty that prevents us from defending our people is outdated and, I believe, dangerous,” Bush proclaimed in Shanghai. He described as essential “limited (missile) defences that are able to protect both our lands (the US and Russia) from political blackmail, from potential terrorist attack”.

For his part, Putin said in Shanghai that he and Bush “have an understanding that we can reach agreements”. The Russian leader has been keen to avoid an outright US renunciation of the ABM treaty that he has frequently described as the cornerstone of bilateral military relations. But he has other powerful reasons for cutting a deal.

One is his intention to win an accompanying commitment to slash both sides’ arsenals of strategic warheads. The 1993 Start II agreement, although still not implemented, reduced stockpiles to 3,500 warheads apiece. The two sides are now discussing further, deeper cuts - a key objective for Russia which simply can no longer afford to maintain its nuclear strikeforce at current levels.

Putin is trading on America’s gratitude for his unexpected and practical support for the ‘war on terrorism’ to attain a range of other aims. They include a big Russian say in the composition of any post-Taliban administration in Afghanistan; continuing, primary control of Central Asia’s oil; and an end to embarrassing public criticism of his domestic human rights record - especially his brutal suppression of Chechen fighters (whom he repeatedly links to Al Qaeda). In the event of NMD deployment, Putin is also looking for technology-sharing arrangements to help Russia build its own missile shield. Bush clearly hinted at this possibility in Shanghai.

But what may be good for the US and Russia is not necessarily good for everybody else. The objections to NMD are unchanged. It remains at bottom an essentially reckless act of weapons proliferation. It may well provoke an international arms race as nuclear-armed countries such as China, India and Pakistan take countermeasures - and others, such as Iran, accelerate their nuclear weapons programmes.

If it goes ahead, NMD will inevitably entangle third parties such as Britain. It will lead directly to the militarization of space. And crucially, it will deflect attention and resources away from already faltering international efforts to curb the spread of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction among non-nuclear states and groups. Putin’s visit to the US will bear close scrutiny. For with all eyes on Osama bin Laden, the highly contentious military and geostrategic foundations of the 21st century are being laid - and hardly anybody is watching. —Dawn/The Guardian News Service.