President Bush has imparted his views on US defence policy’s future. From his speech, a conclusion could be made, that the US will soon withdraw from ABM treaty. According to White House plans, US withdrawal from ABM should have been declared this Thursday, though the date could be delayed. This is being reported by CBS referring to anonymous representatives of US administration. At the same time, the TV company states, US official withdrawal from ABM will be declared one of these days. The administration’s representatives notice this step could be explained with Pentagon's intention to carry out several tests of the NMD system within nearest six months, that will violate the 1972 ABM. The US President, while appearing before students of South Carolina Military School, said about his view on the up-to-date defence doctrine. Of course, the question was about his beloved child – NMD. The president skilfully connected the anti-missile shield with the military actions in Afghanistan. According to George Bush, in today’s Afghan campaign, the US gathers reconnaissance information “in air” immediately transmitting it to land troops and starting reconnaissance planes and following the enemy with “clever” missiles and bombs in a scale not seen before. Though, this cannot be a reason to stop the Armed Forces’ development. According to Bush, the Armed Forces should sacrifice some of their favourite ideas and methods. “The War on terrorism cannot justify existence of some outdated military bases, programme providing and arm systems. Every defence dollar must be spent so, that the equipment bought for it is tested only once,” – he said. According to Bush, future wars could be started by state parties, possessing long-rage missiles and mass destruction arms. The NMD plans could be a kind of this problem’s solving. As for high technologies, Afghanistan is of course a testing area for US new arms, while here reconnaissance planes, laser cannons and “clever” missile could be tested, that unfortunately often hit upon US own people. Another question is outcast countries possessing long-range missiles and mass destruction arms, that seem only to think how to commit suicide. Among the self-murderers are Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Somalia and some others. Apropos, I wonder, how the US defence doctrine is intending to fight against biological terrorism? All the more, we have already understood, no missiles are necessary for it, only usual post envelopes. Mr Bush cannot answer this question yet. Unfortunately. Because not everybody is optimistic what about this kind of terrorism. US administration’s intention to withdraw from ABM is a “bad idea”, democratic majority’s leader in US Senate Thomas Daschle said while appearing in CNN channel. According to him, the treaty’s violation will seriously damage US defence initiative. The senator supposes, the withdrawal from the treaty will be a slap in the face of people who devoted years if not dozens of years to the arm reduction process, though he hopes US administration will carefully decide AMB fate. The Senate majority’s leader expects the administration will change its intention. His position is shared by Joseph R. Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who supposes US one-sided withdrawal from the 1972 ABM will be a serious mistake. Bush administration did not present any persuasive explanations why the planned tests of the NMD system demand its refusal from the treaty, that has been keeping peace for 30 years, Biden’s statement says. Yes, the senators seem to be right. For what aims the balance of power will be upset? All the questions could be solved in the framework of the treaty. And now, Russia should make reciprocal steps, after the bilateral relations started to get warm. US withdrawal from the treaty automatically annihilates all agreements signed in its framework. Therefore, Russia should not keep these agreements as well. So, do you imagine what this will cause?
Dmitry Litvinovich PRAVDA.Ru
Translated by Vera Solovieva
Read the original in Russian: http://pravda.ru/main/2001/12/12/34767.html