Smoke and Mirrors, An Editorial Opinion by Congressman Don Young
Washington, D.C.,
Jan 29, 1999 -
SMOKE AND MIRRORS
An Editorial Opinion by Congressman Don Young
The Department of Defense indicated on Wednesday January 20, 1999, that it was now time to fund the development of a limited National Missile Defense (NMD) for all of the United States. Secretary of Defense William Cohen announced a $6.6 billion initiative to apparently deploy a limited missile defense by the year 2005.
While this seems like common sense to those of us who are concerned about the emerging missile threats to the U.S., the Administration has had a national security policy of smoke and mirrors regarding the defense of our homeland. During the past 2-3 years the signs have been clear through numerous hearings, testimony from defense experts, reviews by independent groups, a critical report by a former Secretary of Defense, and, finally, a North Korean missile fired over Japan, of a growing danger of missile strikes by a rogue nation against the American homeland. Better late than never, it appears, this Administration finally decided it will move forward on defending our country against this menace.
However, rejoicing may be premature. Until recently, the Clinton Administration refrained from a commitment to limited missile defense to defend the U.S. homeland because of the possible violations of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Now, despite the assertions by Secretary of Defense Cohen that we could, if necessary, withdraw from that accord, other U.S. government voices continue to insist the ABM Treaty as fundamental to U.S. security. Something has to give.
For example, of the two sites being considered for the future deployment of a NMD system (Grand Forks, North Dakota and Alaska), only North Dakota is ABM compliant. Yet experts say the North Dakota site cannot protect the entire country. Don't the American people deserve to expect that all 50 states will be defended? And doesn't the public expect a national security policy that will not restrain the development of a site because it is not "Treaty" compliant, but would provide for the defense of the nation at all costs? Of course they do.
The Administration says we will work out changes to the ABM Treaty with Russia. But press accounts from Secretary Albright's trip to Russia indicates how hard this will be. The Russian Foreign Minister and others have denounced the U.S. national missile defense program and refused to consider modifying the 27-year old treaty to permit such deployments. This begs the question as to how will the U.S. resolve this contentious difference of policy? Will the Russians have a veto over our missile defense plans?
The answers might lie in the actions that the Administration will take to appease Russia's military and socio-economic instability. Will the U.S. allow Russia to add nuclear weapons to existing missiles, backing away from the key START II provision banning multiple warhead land-based ICBMs? Or will the Administration offer additional funding assistance to persuade Russian holdouts to ratify START II and show flexibility on the ABM Treaty? Or will we walk away from the ABM Treaty? Only time will tell.
But the time for having it both ways is past. The public needs to be assured the U.S. government speaks with forthrightness on America's fundamental security issues. The Clinton Administration ought to resolve to do away with the smoke and mirrors. The President must be decisive in favor of protecting our national security and meeting the growing threats to the American people.
|
