Disarmament Diplomacy

News Review

US and Russia Talk, Manoeuvre on Missile Defence

Political Developments

As featured extensively in Documents & Sources, intense high-level US-Russia discussions on missile defence and nuclear reductions have been continuing, with often conciliatory words on both sides juxtaposed, notwithstanding a flurry of misleading headlines, with a lack of substantive progress. While both sides now acknowledge the need to link discussions of offensive and defensive systems, Russia remains wedded to an essentially unamended ABM Treaty as the key reference-point for such talks, while for its part, the Bush administration seems more inclined to seek the unlikely prospect of a coordinated US-Russia withdrawal from the ABM Treaty than to press for significant amendments. Moscow, however, is complaining with increasing frequency that conflicting and unclear US statements make it difficult to know where matters stand. US officials themselves acknowledge that the ongoing review of US nuclear posture and disarmament objectives is temporarily complicating the situation. There appears to be no ambiguity, however, in Washington's determination to move beyond the ABM Treaty as and when it sees fit. As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld phrased it on August 16: "[T]he ABM Treaty has a provision that allows either side to give six months' notice and withdraw from the treaty. The United Stares is certainly not going to breach the treaty and violate it in any way. If we are unable to establish a new relationship with Russia so that we can get the treaty behind us so that we can proceed to develop the kinds of missile defence capabilities that we're going to need to live in this new world we're in...then obviously the United States would have to give notice."

Note: in a radio interview in Moscow on August 21, John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, stated that the US hoped "significant progress" on the issue will have been made by the time Presidents Bush and Putin meet in Texas in November. Mr. Bolton's comments were widely and immediately interpreted as amounting to a deadline, a claim strongly rebutted by the Undersecretary and other officials. On August 23, President Bush was as explicit about his intentions to withdraw from the treaty, as he was non-committal on the question of when the Rubicon might finally be crossed: "We will withdraw from the ABM Treaty on our timetable. I have no specific timetable in mind. I have made it clear that I think the treaty hampers our ability to keep the peace. I do know that Mr. Putin is aware of our desire to move beyond the ABM Treaty, and we will." See next issue for details and reaction.

Military and Fiscal Planning

On June 27, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld unveiled his Department's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2002. The total amount requested - $328.9 billion, an increase of $32.6 billion over the FY 2001 budget - contains $8.3 billion, an increase of 57% over current levels, for missile defence programmes. In the words of the Secretary's statement: "The budget advances the President's commitment to build effective missile defences based on the best available technologies, deployed at the earliest possible date. It includes a total of $7.0 billion for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) programmes and $1.3 billion for lower-tier systems that will be devolved to the Services. It emphasizes a new approach focussed on an expanded, robust RDT&E [research, development, testing and evaluation] programme with flexibility to pursue most promising developments. The Airborne Laser, Space-Based Laser, and Space-Based Infra-Red System (SBIRS) Low programmes are to be merged into the BMDO programme."

Under the heading 'Strategic Forces and Precision Strike', Rumsfeld's statement read: "The budget advances the President's initiative to reshape US strategic and tactical nuclear forces for the post-Cold War world by funding design studies to convert two Trident submarines to cruise missile carrying submarines and by beginning to retire Peacekeeper [MX] missiles."

Reacting to the Peacekeeper retirement programme, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement of July 3 observed: "We have taken note of the report that US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld...mentioned an intention to withdraw 50 MX ICBMs from the strategic nuclear force for budget economy purposes. We regard this intention as a step in the right direction, including in the context of the implementation of the operating START I Treaty, under which the United States is obliged to reduce the number of nuclear warheads on its strategic offensive arms in December 2001 to 6,000. We hope that Washington, guided by the 'spirit of Ljubljana' [established at the Bush-Putin summit meeting in Slovenia in June], will be able to go further, accepting the proposal of Vladimir Putin of July 2, 2001, for the controlled drastic reduction of strategic offensive arms by the year 2008 to 1,500 units. We believe that the dismantling of the MX ICBMs and their launchers will be carried out by the American side with due consideration of the provisions and procedures envisaged by START I." Commenting on the proposed budget as a whole, the Russian Foreign Ministry observed dryly on June 29: "Such a considerable increase in the defence budget of the United States raises legitimate questions, as it is obviously at variance with the public evaluations by Washington of the 'radically' altered situation in the world after the end of the Cold War."

On July 24, Joseph Biden, Democratic Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, expressed his astonishment at the missile defence budget request: "Frankly, I marvel at the audacity of a request for $8 billion to conduct unspecified research and development on programmes which may or may not violate a treaty..."

Briefing reporters on details of the FY 2002 budget proposal, Pentagon officials stated that part of the missile defence funds being sought would be allocated to preparing the construction of five missile-interceptor sites at Fort Greeley, near Fairbanks in Alaska. The status of the site, anticipated by the Defense Department to be completed in rudimentary form by 2004, was not clear from officials' comments: while it would certainly be used to conduct missile-intercept tests, it could apparently also be declared fully operational in extremis, i.e. in the advent of a ballistic missile attack against US territory. On July 10, Defense Department spokesperson Rear Admiral Craig Quigley told reporters that the Alaska complex would form a "test bed". Refusing to state the Bush administration's view of whether, and at what point, the development of such a site would violate the ABM Treaty, Quigley insisted: "We intend to conduct a much more robust test programme and to develop the research and data and analysis that you need to test out different means of providing missile defence." Quigley added, however: "I think if the country needed it, you would certainly consider such a system viable." On July 20, Representative Ike Skelton, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, noted warily: "The administration wants to build two launch sites for ground-based interceptors. They're called 'test beds', but you can't even test from one of them. That sounds more like a deployment to me, and we haven't in this Congress approved any deployment." Skelton added that the administration "wants to start building sites in August [FY 2001], even though Congress did not authorise, did not appropriate, did not reprogramme the 2001 funds for that purpose..." Russia's position was spelled out succinctly on July 19 by former Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev, now a senior adviser to President Putin: "The beginning of construction of the test range...will signal the violation of the ABM Treaty." Sergeyev added sharply: "I think the Americans are striving for a one-way deterrent."

On July 31, Quigley told a briefing that a team of Pentagon lawyers had "found some instances where there is at least a question in the review group's mind as to whether or not the proposed activity [in the FY 2002 budget] would remain in compliance with the treaty. The next step on that is to take a hard look, discuss within government, discuss with other treaty experts, as to whether or not we can arrive at a consensus on the interpretation and go from there."

Expectations of a speedy withdrawal from the treaty were raised by a July 11 State Department cable sent to all embassies and foreign missions, suggesting a timescale of "months, not years" before US testing requirements outstripped the accord's restrictions. (See the article in this issue by Thomas Graham, Jack Mendelsohn, John Rhinelander and Alexander Yerekovsky for further details.) On July 13, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement expressing alarm at the cable:

"The US embassies abroad, including in Moscow, have issued an information bulletin which says that missile defense tests planned by the US 'will come into conflict with the 1972 ABM Treaty within months, not years'. It also said that 'a new framework' of strategic relations with Russia, which Washington plans to offer to Moscow, 'will not be based on the 1972 ABM Treaty'. These reports cannot but cause surprise because at the same time the American side made public statements in which it pledged to refrain from unilateral moves in the sphere of strategic stability. An agreement was reached at the highest level in Ljubljana to begin a substantive Russian-US discussion of the 'new content' of strategic stability, in which each side will of course lay down its own approach toward this superimportant issue and has every right to expect its concerns to be taken into account. As for our proposals, their principal constructive nature is well known and has not been kept secret from anyone. Russia's latest initiatives fully take into account appropriate US strategic priorities. Provided that the basic disarmament 'architecture', including the 1972 ABM Treaty, is preserved, Russia has proposed the most radical and controlled cuts in strategic offensive weapons down to 1,500 nuclear warheads and lower, concrete measures to enhance non-proliferation, prevent an arms race in outer space, and expand a substantive discussion of strategic questions within the framework of multilateral mechanisms, including the five nuclear powers - UN Security Council permanent members which bear special responsibility for the success of the NPT, the CTBT and other cornerstone international agreements. It is from these positions that we conduct and will conduct our dialogue with the US and other countries interested in settling international security and stability."

Writing in the Washington Post on July 13, Philip Coyle, senior adviser at the Centre for Defense Information (CDI) and former Pentagon Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, argued: "The United States faces a complex and difficult set of expensive missile defence development problems - problems that abrogating the ABM Treaty will not overcome. Thus, the administration's insistence that it will only be 'months' before testing abrogates the treaty is hard to understand. Rather than focussing on the red herring of the ABM Treaty, proponents of missile defence would do better to concentrate on crafting long-term, affordable approaches to technology development."

On June 26, a report conducted by Mr. Coyle before he left the Pentagon was belatedly made available. The 'Coyle Report' - 'A Comprehensive Pentagon Study Criticizing the National Missile Defense Test Program' - contains scathing criticism on the Department's standards and procedures for conducting and evaluating missile defence, and particularly missile-intercept, tests. Further details, and the report in full, is available from the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform at http://www.house.gov/reform/min/nmd.html.

On July 27, Pentagon officials confirmed reports that the successful missile-intercept test conducted on July 14 (see Documents and Sources) had been assisted by use of a beacon fitted to the incoming missile. According to Lt. Gen. Rick Lehrer, a spokesperson for the BMDO: "The only thing that it [the beacon] does is help get the booster in the right direction. The weapon finds the target and hits this." On August 9, General Yuri Baluyevsky, Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff, referred questioning to the July 14 test: "There is no precise data which would show there was a direct hit of the payload against the dummy. There is no evidence to show there was a direct hit." On August 15, BMDO Director Lt. Gen Ronald Kadish candidly expressed his concerns about the 'hit-to-kill' technology under development: "It's still not totally comfortable for me to say that we can make the hit-to-kill technology work, even in that simple scenario [of the beacon-aided July 14 test]... We still need some more reliability in there."

Selected Comment

President Bush, August 16 (referring to his discussions with President Putin at the G-8 Summit in Genoa): "I told him in plain terms. I said, Mr. President, you don't have anything to fear from the United States. ... [W]e need to get rid of these ancient treaties, codified during a time when we hated each other... And I told Mr. Putin, come along with us. It's a chance to set up a new strategic partnership. ... I think we're making pretty good progress..."

President Bush, quoted in Newsweek, June 25: 12.0pt'>"According to a knowledgeable source, Bush was stunned at the amount of destructive power in a President's hands. 'I had no idea we had so many weapons,' he said. 'What do we need them for?'"

Secretary of State Colin Powell, July 14: "We need an understanding, an agreement, a treaty, something with the Russians that allows us to move forward with our missile defence programmes. Sometime in the not too distant future we're going to need relief..."

Secretary of State Powell, June 20: "Claims that the Russians will suddenly break out in an arms race and start doing this, that and the other are a bit overstated, even by the Russians, even when they say it. We are not trying to put in place a defence of the kind that should cause Russia and China to have sleepless nights. It's quite a different thing."

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, June 28: "[The ABM Treaty] is not, and to my knowledge never was, the centrepiece or cornerstone of strategic stability."

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Moscow, July 26: 12.0pt'>"At this stage, we are just talking about a robust testing and evaluation [programme]... There is no system that the United States can just pull off the shelf and deploy. ... There is a recognition [in Russia] that the United States intends to move forward with missile defence. You've got discussion now about how you move forward, not if you move forward. That's considerable progress in the last several months."

Unnamed US administration official briefing reporters on discussions between President Bush and Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan, June 30: "The Prime Minister said...he agreed that there were new threats. He also said that this was the time...doing the technological work to see what could be achieved, and he made a comment that I thought was very interesting... [H]e said we are a people in Japan who really believe in defence, and these are defensive systems, not offensive systems, so we ought to be exploring them."

Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, August 3: "I'm hopeful I can convince the majority of my colleagues...that it matters a great deal how the administration pursues missile defence and what it pursues..."

Senator Biden, June 17: "We should be adjusting the ABM Treaty, not scrapping it... What's the hurry? No one is saying don't spend the money on the research. No one is saying don't continue down that road."

Democratic Senator John Kerry, member of the Foreign Relations Committee, questioning Undersecretary of State John Bolton, July 24: "The reason the Russians object to this, the reason the Chinese are apoplectic about their 23 missiles perhaps being completely rendered useless by a defensive system, is because they know it alters the balance. ... If you change a country's perception of its safety...aren't you also inviting them to alter the balance of power in order to secure a greater level of safety? ... If our newfound relationship with Russia is indeed what you say it is...could we not have a far more intrusive joint protocol which would almost make it impossible to have an unauthorised launch - a level of security with joint keys, or whatever?"

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, Chair of the Appropriations Committee, June 26: "I do not support the deployment of a multibillion-dollar scarecrow that will not be an effective defence if a missile is actually launched at us..."

Republican Representative Curt Weldon, June 20: 12.0pt'>"We should tell one and all that we [will] deploy a missile defence programme to defend the United States and our troops abroad. When the time is ripe, we will extend that protection to our NATO allies, and our friends in the Middle East and the Pacific Rim. We would like to do this in concert with our European friends, but if necessary we will go it alone."

Former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, interview published in the Colombus Ledger-Enquirer, July 24: "[NMD is a ] technologically ridiculous idea...[that will] re-escalate the nuclear arms race."

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, article in the Washington Post, June 26: "If...Putin keeps threatening to add to Russia's strategic warhead numbers [in response to NMD], we have two things to communicate to him. First, as an act of kindness we could point out that he'd get substantially more military utility out of battleships, the political currency of 1920s arms control. But if he ignores this friendly suggestion, then it's time for the shrug."

Russian President Vladimir Putin, July 23: "We are certain that the elimination of the...ABM Treaty and the creation of the nuclear missile defence system by the United States disrupts this [existing strategic] balance... This means that all countries, including Russia, will have the legal right to place clusters of warheads rather than a single-warhead on land-based missiles. This is the cheapest response. ... [It would allow to overcome any defence system] for fifty or maybe one hundred years."

President Putin, June 22: "I want to say that if such a response [equipping multiple warheads to Russian ICBMs] does take place, it will not be aimed against the creators of the NMD system... [I]t should not worry anyone."

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov, July 24: style='mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt'>"If the experts come to the conclusion that some changes in the treaty won't harm the national security of Russia, then I will report that to the President. If not, the treaty will remain unchanged. ... We have our own list of rogue states and the United States knows about it."

Defence Minister Ivanov, July 14: "We are still oriented towards patient consultations and we will conduct them. ... Some [US officials] say they are withdrawing from the treaty. Others say they are not withdrawing. Still others say the ABM Treaty will not be violated. Therefore, there is no point in reacting to such very contradictory statements."

Former Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev, Senior Adviser to President Putin, July 19: "In October or perhaps later in the year, the Americans plan to complete a nuclear review and after that concrete discussions will be set up on...whether ABM will remain, be modified, or be subject to a unilateral withdrawal... So far, the Americans [have] failed even to answer [our] very simple, clear question - how does the ABM Treaty interfere with strategic stability in the architecture of the 21^st century? We cannot see how it does."

Igor Sergeyev, July 13: "Unfortunately, our forecasts are coming true - no reasons or arguments we cited during the consultations with the American side could stop the United States' striving for hegemony in the strategic arms sphere..."

Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, Head of the Defence Ministry's Department of International Cooperation, June 29: "[Russia] does not rule out amendments to this [ABM] agreement, but what the United States is demanding will lead to the collapse of the entire accord. We are not going down that path as such a step would destroy the system of checks and balances in the strategic sphere."

Lt. General Anatoly Mazurkevich, senior Russian Defence Ministry official, August 13: "I think the strategic decision has already been made [by the US]... From what was said [to us], the technical parameters of the tests that they foresee in the next few months do not coincide with the terms of the ABM Treaty... [T]herefore, it was said, they will have to leave the treaty unilaterally."

Oleg Chernov, Deputy Secretary of Russia's Presidential Security Council, following talks with Condoleezza Rice, July 27: "We are for bringing the maximum number of countries possessing nuclear arms or technologies into the process of discussion of strategic stability issues in the framework of the ABM Treaty."

Russian Foreign Ministry statement on Russia-China discussions, July 26: "[Foreign Minister] Igor Ivanov informed his Chinese opposite [Tang Jiaxuan] on the Russia-US contacts on issues related to the positions of the parties concerning the 1972 ABM Treaty, and stressed Russia's commitment to the basic principles of the Treaty. The two noted the identical positions of the two countries on this issue."

UK Defence Minister Geoff Hoon, July 9: "There's little purpose of going to the trouble of taking such a decision [of participating in NMD] unless and until the United States has a system that they are confident will work..."

Uta Zapf, Social Democratic Chair of the German Parliament's Committee on Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, July 9: 12.0pt'>"We don't want to do away with any treaty until a proper solution has been found. To break the ABM Treaty because you think three rogue states [might pose a future threat]...is not the way. I don't see the need to spend $180 billion to stop three small states..."

Reports: Report - Bush stunned by US nuclear arsenal size, Reuters, June 17; Russian missile treaty called obsolete, Associated Press, June 17; NRDC report finds current US nuclear war plan main barrier to reducing stockpiles, NRDC Press Release, June 18; Powell says mutual destruction is here to stay, Reuters, June 20; Bush can follow Reagan's lead in policy on missile defense, by Representative Curt Weldon, Philadelphia Inquirer, June 20; Putin says Russia could add warheads if ABM ignored, Reuters, June 23; Putin pushes ABM Treaty, Associated Press, June 23; Powell dismisses Putin threat, Associated Press, June 23; Dropping the bomb, Newsweek, June 25; Pentagon study casts doubt on missile defense schedule, New York Times, June 25; Putin's futile warhead-rattling, by R. James Woolsey, Washington Post, June 26; The Coyle Report: A Comprehensive Pentagon Study Criticising the National Missile Test Program, Prepared for Rep. John F. Tierney, June 26; Bush beefs up effort to develop missile defense, Reuters, June 26; Lawmakers introduce 'Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 2001', Nuclear Threat Reduction Campaign Press Release, June 27; Text - Rumsfeld releases amended FY 2002 defense budget, Washington File, June 27; Rumsfeld disavows ABM Treaty as cornerstone of strategic stability, Washington File, June 28; Pentagon to ask for retirement of MX missiles, New York Times, June 28; Bush budget lays foundation for national missile shield, Los Angeles Times, June 28; Russia open to ABM changes, top General says, Reuters, June 29; On Pentagon's plans to increase US defense budget, Russian Foreign Ministry Statement, Document 1247-29-06-2001, June 29; Transcript - background briefing on Bush-Koizumi meeting at Camp David, Washington File, June 30; On the intention of the United States to liquidate MX ICBMs, Russian Foreign Ministry Statement, Document 1271-03-07-2001, July 3; Democrat hears Euro doubts on missile defense, Reuters, July 9; Europe rebuffs plan to drop ABM Treaty, Washington Times, July 9; Pentagon to seek money for testing missile defense, New York Times, July 9; US plans missile defense test sites in Alaska, Reuters, July 10; State Dept. notifies of test plans, Associated Press, July 12; US planned missile defence system testing, Russian Foreign Ministry Statement, Document 1331-13-07-2001, July 13; The ABM ambush, by Philip Coyle, Washington Post, July 13; Putin aide warns on US missiles, Associated Press, July 13; Powell says US will seek arms accord with Russia, Washington Post, July 14; 'Contradictory' US words on ABM issue puzzle Russia, New York Times, July 14; Putin adviser warns on missile range, Associated Press, July 19; Putin adviser seeks US decision on missile talks, Reuters, July 19; Congress lauds missile test, criticizes scant consultations, Washington File, July 20; Carter criticizes Bush term, Associated Press, July 24; Dems. Amazed at Bush's Russia view, Associated Press, July 24; Senators express cautious support for missile defense development, Washington File, July 24; Minister - US, Russia to swap defense visits, Reuters, July 24; Leader - Russia may weigh ABM changes, Associated Press, July 24; Adviser Rice wants US free of ABM constraints, Reuters, July 26; On Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov's meeting with China's Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan, Russian Foreign Ministry Statement, Document 1401-26-07-2001, July 26; US offers Russia a blueprint for talks on nuclear weapons, New York Times, July 27; Russia opposes scuttling ABM Treaty, Associated Press, July 27; US anti-missile test aided by beacon - officials, Reuters, July 27; Pentagon - work may violate treaty, Associated Press, July 31; Pentagon study sees no ABM violation soon, Reuters, July 31; Senator's threat to block 'Star Wars', BBC News Online, August 3; Next US anti-missile test likely in October, Reuters, August 9; Russian doubts US missile defense, Associated Press, August 9; Analysis - arsenals key to Russia-US missile dispute, Reuters, August 13; Lt. Gen. discusses missile defense, Associated Press, August 15; 'Hit-to-kill' technology not sure thing - Pentagon, Reuters, August 15; 'True threats' facing US from terrorist nations, Bush says, Washington File, August 16; Secretary Rumsfeld with PBS Newshour, Washington File, August 16; US sets deadline for settlement of ABM agreement, New York Times, August 22; Bush - US to quit arms pact on 'our timetable', Reuters, August 23.

© 2001 The Acronym Institute.