PRESS RELEASE

12 July 2001

July 12 – The Bush administration’s plans to develop a national missile defence (NMD) system accelerated this week with several revelations from officials and recent testimony in the U.S. Congress. Among the controversial announcements from the White House:

· Washington has told allies and Russia that it plans to violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, indicating that "while we do not know precisely when our programs will come into conflict with the ABM treaty in the future, the timing is likely to be measured in months, not years." The U.S. informed its embassies to advise allied governments that plans include treaty-defiant testing of developing technology, such as sea- and air-based missile defences. ("Bush Speeds Missile Defense Plans," By Vernon Loeb and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, July 12, 2001)

· The Bush administration will announce plans to the U.S. Congress as soon as Monday to establish a new missile defence test facility in Alaska. While the initial work this year will be preparatory, actual construction of a new test site would be in direct violation of agreements under the ABM treaty, which allows the United States to have test sites only in New Mexico and at the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. ("Work To Begin On Site For Testing Missile Defense," by James Dao, New York Times, July 12, 2001)

· A 57% increase in the funding for NMD research and development has been requested in the defence budget for the next fiscal year, released in late June. Increases come in the areas of developing sea-based theatre missile defence, as well as exploring space-based defence options. ("Budget Plan Contains Shifts For Several BMD Efforts," By Kerry Gildea, Defense Daily, June 26, 2001)

Taken together, these unilateral steps by the Bush administration to advance its NMD plans threaten the global arms control regime. While these actions may be worthwhile measures for the United States, other countries worldwide have expressed considerable disagreement with these decisions:

· "We have indicated that the rules-based system of arms control is a very important characteristic for Canada ... We are urging the United States to work with Russia to evolve the ABM treaty if it is necessary to do so. But that they not move unilaterally to abrogate or violate ABM." (John Manley, Canadian Foreign Minister, 25 June 2001)

· "There is a need to consolidate and build upon existing disarmament and non-proliferation agreements, specifically to prevent a new arms race and to maintain the non-weaponized status of outer space." (Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General, 1 May 2001)

· "An effective, treaty-based arms control and disarmament regime must be preserved and expanded, including effective and verifiable prevention of proliferation." (Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, 1 May 2001)

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s response to these developments has been somewhat reserved. During his visit to Washinston yesterday Straw rejected suggestions that under Mr Bush international pacts such as the ABM treaty, which prohibits a national defence against missiles, were disintegrating. "I don’t think these things are unravelling," Mr Straw said. ("Straw treads carefully on Star Wars" The Times, 12 July 2001)

Straw also gave a weak response to the possible undermining of international arms control agreements during an exchange in the House of Commons on Tuesday:

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): But does the Foreign Secretary understand that what unites Labour Back Benchers, Liberal Democrat Members and such influential figures in the Democratic party as Senator Joseph Biden, who has recently become the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate, in their scepticism about missile defence is the prospect of unilateral action by the Bush Administration, when nuclear proliferation has been prevented by a network of treaties and collective agreements? What are the prospects, for example, of maintaining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty at its current level of effectiveness if the United States embarks on unilateral action of the kind proposed?

Mr. Straw: I understand those anxieties. To some extent, they are underlined by the current uncertainties in the propositions from the United States. I note that President George W. Bush, in his speech on 1 May, said:

"We have more work to do to determine the final form the defences might take . . . We recognise the technological difficulties we face".

Given that there is such imprecision in what the United States is proposing, it behoves us, as long-standing allies of the US, not to come to conclusions until we are clear about what we are concluding about. That is why the process of consultation and co-operation that the Prime Minister set in train and that I shall continue tomorrow in Washington is the appropriate way forward.

For more information, please contact: 
Mark Bromley in London on +44 (0)20 7407 2977 or
Christine Kucia in Washington on +1 202 347 8340 

Back to NMD Home Page