Dialogue: US missile strategy a politically risky debacle

GUY WILSON-ROBERTS* says the latest failed test of the United States' planned missile defence project shows that the system should be scrapped.

President Bill Clinton is in a bind. Intelligence reports in 1998 suggested that the United States would be vulnerable to attack by ballistic missiles from North Korea, Iran and Iraq as these states acquired the technology over a 15-year period. Last July, he signed into law the National Missile Defense Act, stipulating that a defence system would be deployed as soon "as is technologically possible."

Mr Clinton decided that if a limited defence system were to be constructed, the target date for its completion would be 2005, in time to close the opening window of vulnerability described in the intelligence reports. But for the 2005 date to be realistic, he has to decide by November whether to start construction. New facilities have to be built in Alaska. With a short building season, construction must begin in the spring.

Such a tight timetable would be acceptable were it not for the fact that the technology of a national missile defence system is far from proven. A decision to build such a system would have serious political repercussions, many relevant to New Zealand.

Over the weekend, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organisation conducted its fifth flight test of the missile interceptor that is the heart of the proposed system, the third test where an actual interception of an incoming mock warhead was attempted. The test failed when the booster rocket of the interceptor spun out of control.

The second test, earlier this year, was also a failure after a breakdown in the interceptor guidance system. The first, last October, was successful but under conditions far removed from a realistic attack scenario.

It is usual for such a complex system to have early problems. However, Mr Clinton is in the bind of having to make a deployment decision based on unproven technology, a restrictive building timetable and the perception of a fixed threat.

Russia would see construction work in Alaska as a violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. If the US were to withdraw from the treaty, or breach it, further nuclear arms control with Russia, and possibly other areas of cooperation, would be jeopardised.

China's reaction might also be severe, at a time when the US is trying to engage with China through normal trade relations. Even European allies are wary about America's fortress mentality. Critics in the US have also pointed out that even if the major technological obstacles to using a missile to hit another missile in space could be overcome, the basic threat that the system is designed to protect against would not be the threat that adversaries would deploy.

Forty-five experts on China recently wrote to President Clinton warning of the implications for relations with that nation.

The recent summit meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea has shown that behaviour by the countries that purportedly threaten the US can be influenced.

Missile development in these countries, contrary to intelligence reports, is not on fixed timetables. North Korea is again the example. It has suspended the testing of its new long-range missile and is likely to refrain from renewing that testing if the right incentives are found.

With the bind of the timetable still in place, Mr Clinton does have options. The latest test failure could justify a delay in the building schedule, perhaps by two years.

With the implications for foreign relations still looking dire, he could decide that more consultation with allies and others is necessary before a firm decision is made. There might even be a deal with Russia.

The threat is also changing, but suggesting that North Korea is now firmly on the straight and narrow would not be politically expedient.

New Zealand has an interest in improving relations between North Korea and other regional countries, and a good relationship between the US and China and Russia. In the Asia-Pacific region, we would surely prefer to see greater cooperation in areas of mutual benefit, and greater consultation in areas of disagreement or tension.

National missile defence would unnecessarily complicate relations between the US and Russia, China and even Europe. The failure of the weekend interception test gives Mr Clinton the chance to delay a deployment decision.

Unfortunately, many still believe that such a defence system is technologically feasible and politically manageable. It is not, and should be abandoned. However, given the support that national missile defence has in the US, it will remain a live issue well into the next presidency.

* Dr Guy Wilson-Roberts is deputy director of Victoria University's Centre for Strategic Studies.