|
Farewell
to the
ABM
Treaty
By
David
Krieger
President, The
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
TFF
associate
June 18, 2002
Without a vote of the United States Congress and over
the objections of Russia and most US allies, George W.
Bush has unilaterally withdrawn the US from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, rendering it void.
His withdrawal from this solemn treaty obligation became
effective today, June 13, 2002.
Bush's action is being challenged in US federal court
by 32 members of Congress, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich
(D-OH) and Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI). We should be
thankful that there are still members of Congress with
the courage and belief in democracy to challenge such
abuse of presidential power.
Since becoming president, Bush has waged a campaign
against international law. Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty
is but one of a series of assaults he has made, including
pulling out of the Kyoto Accords on Climate Change,
withdrawal of the US from the treaty creating an
International Criminal Court, opposing a Protocol to the
Biological Weapons Convention that would allow for
inspections and verification, and failing to fulfill US
obligations related to the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty.
Bush told the American people that he was withdrawing
from the ABM Treaty so that the US could proceed with the
deployment of missile defenses defenses that most
independent experts believe are incapable of actually
providing defense. The president has traded a
long-standing and important arms control treaty for the
possibility that there might be a technological fix for
nuclear dangers that would allow the US to threaten, but
not be threatened by, nuclear weapons. In doing so, he
has pulled another brick from the foundation of
international law and created conditions that will
undoubtedly make the US and the rest of the world less
secure. He has also moved toward establishing an imperial
presidency, unfettered by such constitutional restraints
as the separation of powers.
In 1972, when the US and USSR agreed to a treaty
limiting anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, they did
so for good reasons, which are described below in the
Preamble to the treaty to which I have added some
comments.
Proceeding from the premise that nuclear war would
have devastating consequences for all mankind,
[Nothing has changed here, except that 30 years later
we might better use the term "humankind."]
Considering that effective measures to limit
anti-ballistic missile systems would be a substantial
factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms
and would lead to a decrease in the risk of outbreak of
war involving nuclear weapons, [This relationship
between offensive and defensive systems still holds
true.]
Proceeding from the premise that the limitation of
anti-ballistic missile systems, as well as certain agreed
measures with respect to the limitation of strategic
offensive arms, would contribute to the creation of more
favorable conditions for further negotiations on limiting
strategic arms, [The recent treaty signed by Bush and
Putin only applies limits to actively deployed nuclear
weapons and at levels high enough to still destroy
civilization and most life on the planet.]
Mindful of their obligations under Article VI of the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
[The United States under the Bush administration has
been contemptuous of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its
Article VI obligations to achieve nuclear
disarmament.]
Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest
possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and
to take effective measures toward reductions in strategic
arms, nuclear disarmament, and general and complete
disarmament, [These promises remain largely
unfulfilled 30 years later.]
Desiring to contribute to the relaxation of
international tension and the strengthening of trust
between States. [The US missile defense program and
related US plans to weaponize outer space have the
potential to again send the level of international
tensions skyrocketing, particularly in Asia.]
The ABM Treaty was meant to be for an "unlimited
duration," but allowed for withdrawal if a country should
decide "that extraordinary events related to the subject
matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme
interests." Bush never bothered to explain to the
American people or to the Russians how the treaty
jeopardized the supreme interests of the Untied States.
It is clear, though, that withdrawal from the treaty as a
unilateral act of the president has undermined our true
"supreme interests" in upholding democracy and
international law.
David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).
He can be contacted at dkrieger@napf.org.
©
TFF & the author 2002
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|