New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 04:51pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8609 of 8614)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"Russia made clear today that this was not likely to be the case. Rather, the senior official said, time-consuming consultations "to clarify each other's positions on security matters of the 21st century " and for jointly drafting proposals for a new strategic framework lie ahead, to be followed by concrete negotiations. The talks would have to take into account the concerns of the other major nuclear powers, China, France and Britain, he said.

"Since mid-August, Russian officials have said they did not think such negotiations on a strategic framework could even begin until the end of the year, after Washington had completed a review of its strategic forces and after a full-scale consultation on strategic issues had been completed between Russia and the United States.

"A Kremlin aide, Oleg Chernov, reiterated that position on Wednesday in an interview with The Washington Post, saying it would be impossible for the United States and Russia to complete both consultations and then negotiations by November, when Mr. Bush will be host to Mr. Putin at his ranch in Crawford, Tex.

"Russian officials first elaborated their view of that timetable three weeks ago in meetings with the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, John R. Bolton, when he visited Moscow for a round of consultations set out by Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin in their summit meetings this summer.

""A specific talk with Washington" on strategic arms reduction "and ABM issues can be started no earlier than the end of this year," a Foreign Ministry official told reporters upon Mr. Bolton's arrival.

By the time Mr. Bolton left Moscow, he had tried to push this time frame forward, telling Russian officials that the Bush administration wanted an agreement from Moscow to amend the ABM treaty by the time the presidents met in November. The next day, Mr. Bolton said that he had not meant to impose any deadline.

"But Mr. Bush said two days later that the United States would "withdraw from the ABM treaty on our own timetable at a time convenient to America." He added that he had no "specific timetable in mind."

"The Americans have also said they do not want to be accused of violating the treaty as they plan radar complexes and silos for missile interceptors in the spring in Alaska. The treaty requires six months' notice by the party wishing to withdraw.

"The senior Russian official who responded today was identified only as a "highly placed military-diplomatic" official by Interfax.

rshowalter - 04:53pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8610 of 8614)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The Russians are trying to find a system of security that works for them, and the rest of the world. If this thread is of any use as an analog, Russians have a great willingness to discuss these things, and a desire for real progress - up to and including full nuclear disarmament, if a set of world security relations could make that seem and feel safe for them.

The Russians want peace, and so do the Americans. The absence of communication, over long duration, makes for very different world views. This is a situation where the phrase "paradigm conflict" fairly applies.
MD8352 rshowalter 9/2/01 6:11pm ... MD6013 rshowalter 6/25/01 4:05pm

Islands of shared fact and common understanding are useful or essential if "win-win" situations are to be crafted. And it is "win-win" situations that the world needs.

These commonalities cannot be built on trust without checking. There is too much at stake for that, and too much history for that. Including too much injury and fear.

rshowalter - 04:53pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8611 of 8614)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A central problem has to do with a kind of credibility that all adults expect, when stakes are high. When stakes are high, people need to deal with proposals that seem sensible to them, that seem sane to them.

Free human beings can't be reasonably asked to act on any other basis.

Neither Russia, nor China, nor any other country can negotiate away its obligation to understand what it is agreeing to, in all the contexts that actually matter to the nation states involved. That remains an enormous challenge for the Bush administration.

Getting clear on past relations, and establishing "islands of technical fact" that would work as common ground, would be helpful here.

MD8400 rshowalter 9/3/01 10:31pm . . . MD8500 rshowalter 9/5/01 4:04pm

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense