December 22, 2001	Saturday	Shawwal 6, 1422

WASHINGTON: America being what it is, the idea that politics and ideology should be set aside for a higher purpose may seem a quaint, naive sentiment. But few would argue with the statement that the ultimate test in deciding to scrap a treaty that has helped keep the peace for 30 years is whether it makes the United States more or less secure. In that light, President Bush’s decision to unilaterally walk away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is a serious mistake.

No one doubts the US lives in a dangerous world and that its enemies are ruthless. But a “Star Wars” defence, assuming it could be made to work, would address only what the Joint Chiefs of Staff argue is the least likely threat to our national security.

One lesson the US should have learned from the devastating attack of Sept 11 is that terrorists determined to do this nation harm can employ a wide variety of means, and that weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological or even nuclear - need not arrive on the tip of an intercontinental ballistic missile with a return address. That is why the Joint Chiefs of Staff argue that an ICBM launch ranks last on the “Threat Spectrum,” while terrorist attacks constitute the greatest potential threat to our national security.

The administration’s obsession with missile defence - with a price tag in excess of a quarter-trillion dollars for the layered programme on the president’s wish list - is doubly troubling because of the attention and resources being diverted from critical efforts to address genuine threats. While the president says nonproliferation is a high priority, his actions speak louder. Notwithstanding promises of new efforts, the fiscal year 2002 budget that he requested would have cut more than $100 million out of programmes designed to corral Russia’s “loose nukes,” provide help that Russia has requested to destroy its chemical weapons stockpile and prevent unemployed Russian scientists from selling their services to terrorist organizations.

Only when it comes to missile defence is the administration pushing hard. But nothing could be more damaging to global nonproliferation efforts than to go forward with Star Wars. Russia has enough offensive weapons to overwhelm any system the US could devise, so the real issue is what happens in China and throughout Asia.

China currently possesses no more than two dozen ICBMs. US intelligence services estimate that moving forward with national missile defence could trigger a tenfold increase in China’s expansion of its nuclear capability. And that does not take into account likely Chinese behaviour if an arms race ensues, something many experts argue is inevitable when both India and Pakistan respond as expected by ratcheting up their nuclear programmes.

Thus, the cost of unilaterally walking away from the ABM Treaty and forging ahead with national missile defence includes not only dangerous neglect of the real threats the US faces but the likelihood that it will unleash a new arms race that will create a nuclearized Asia.

Finally, Sept 11 clarified the fact that the world is in transition from old Cold War alignments to new patterns of conflict and cooperation. Managing such a transition wisely will determine whether the US takes advantage of new opportunities or whether it allows ideological zealotry to control strategic doctrine.

Al Qaeda’s eager search for weapons of mass destruction highlights the importance of broad nonproliferation efforts and our need to work in concert with like-minded partners. The president skillfully worked to build a coalition to fight international terrorism. That success has created an environment for a changed world with the potential for old enemies to come together. Out of the Sept 11 tragedy the US has opportunities to pivot toward promising new relationships, following up on the cooperation of the moment with a realignment of forces for decades to come.

Indeed, there is some cause for hope. The United States and Russia are making real progress to reduce strategic offensive forces. Secretary of State Colin Powell has indicated the US is relatively close to a formal agreement in this regard-presumably one that binds our countries and provides for verification and transparency.

So far, the administration’s conduct of the war on terrorism has shown discipline, perseverance and an ability to forge international consensus. But the war is only three months old, and the new patterns of cooperation and support are young and fragile.

Today the doors to international cooperation and American leadership are wide open. But if the US slams them shut too often, it will lose the best chance in a generation to work with allies to build a more secure future. —Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) The Washington Post.