|
In 1998, Grigory Yavlinsky was the first Russian politician to
raise the question of a Russia-Europe
non-strategic missile-defence system. At that time many people
considered the Yabloko leader's initiative to be
too revolutionary. Things have changed only now Vladimir Putin proposes
that Europe create such a system. In
the following article Yavlinsky provides his own assessment of the
meaning of the Russian President's initiative.
By the early 1970s the U.S.A. and the USSR had accumulated a huge
number of missiles. It became crystal
clear that it would prove impossible to create an effective defence
against thousands of nuclear warheads. The
attempt to create such a defence system could have created the illusory
sensation of invulnerability and the
temptation to regard oneself as the most important nation in the world
and start issuing orders to everybody else.
However, this would have been the direct road to a third world war. The
1972 ABM Treaty, which prohibited the
unfolding of an anti-ballistic missile "umbrella" over the entire
territory, ensured mutual guaranteed destruction of
the superpowers, should hostilities break out. To put it in a nutshell,
the treaty rendered nuclear warfare
meaningless for them. It guaranteed "peace all over the world", as no
other nation had high missile technology at
that time. This protected us for at least thirty years.
But a technological solution of effective protection against
"nuclear rain" does not exist even today. This is
why the ABM Treaty has not lost its significance. However, Americans
started worrying a couple of years ago
about the possibility of a strike by terrorists such as Bin Laden or the
leader of any rogue state. And they decided
that they wanted an "umbrella". Russia's reaction was a firm "No! - this
would be a violation of the 1972 Treaty".
Some Europeans said with good reason that American withdrawal from the
treaty might lead to a new arms race
and bring an end to global stability. It seemed as if we had entered a
blind alley. This is when the need for fresh
ideas became obvious.
The problem of anti-missile defence consists of two diverse
components. The 1972 Treaty concerns ballistic
missiles. But today America and Europe, as well as Russia, need defence
against all other kinds of missiles capable
of delivering nuclear warheads. Terrorists have claims they want to
settle with all countries, and we are by no
means at the bottom of the list.
Bush Getting Agreeable
Last summer, Bill Clinton decided to demonstrate his
fellow-Americans and the rest of the world how the
Patriot would work against terrorists armed with missiles. But the
Patriot missed. Our tests have shown that the
Russian S-300 complex hits targets with almost 100% precision. But
anti-missile defence comprises not only
complexes to make strikes, but also tracking stations.
To establish an effective anti-missile "umbrella" over Europe, radars
should therefore be deployed on almost half of
Russia's territory. It is necessary to cooperate on behalf of common
security. One of our conditions should be
placement of NATO orders at our enterprises. Many thousands of jobs in
the most sophisticated technologies will
be created in Russia. We would be able to retain not only our best
scientists, but also to build up the potential of
our research institutes and design offices. This provides a good
opportunity to boost our economy.
The possibility of such cooperation had been discussed for quite
some time. At long last, during the most
recent visit by NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson, our Defence
Minister Igor Sergeyev handed him our
proposals for the creation of a non-strategic ABM system in Europe. What
is more, we received a letter from
President George Bush detailing specific orders for our defence
industry. We should not be afraid of the fact that
this proposal was made by the U.S. President. Americans continue to
dominate in NATO. The idea of building a
European ABM system to counterbalance the American system is sheer
nonsense. We will never tear Europe away
from America or destroy NATO. They will always be together, while we can
find ourselves on the roadside. So, we
should cooperate with them in everything that may be of use to us.
What Should We Do About the ABM Treaty?
The 1972 Treaty should be improved. Nuclear technologies may soon
become accessible to many countries,
including the most unpredictable states. We should consider today ways
of defending ourselves in future. Russia is
no less interested in a revision of the 1972 ABM Treaty than the U.S.
Why should we alone bear the complete
burden of global stability? Negotiations are required, involving Russia,
the U.S.A., France, Britain and China, that
is, all the countries which have nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon
launchers.
See also:
Russia's ABM Initiatives
| 