 |
Why Europe Is Critical of Washington on NMD?
The criticism of European leaders and politicians on the US National Missile Defense (NMD)is resurfacing as the new American administration looks set to develop the controversial anti-missile weapon system.
Over the past few weeks, European leaders such as German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder, French President Jacques Chirac and Italian Prime Minster Damato, among others, have expressed their concerns over the US intention. Evidently, several considerations are in their minds.
First, they fear that the NMD's deployment could be detrimental to world peace and stability.
The United States has regarded the Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense treaty signed in 1972 with the former Soviet Union as an obstacle to its NMD development and threatened to unilaterally abrogate it. Such moves, Europeans fear, could lead to new arms race and fresh danger of proliferation of mass destructive weapons.
Therefore, Chirac called the US program an "invitation to proliferation." Shroeder said at the recent Munich Security Policy Conference, "we should work together to preserve the acquisition as it relates to arms control policy, and if possible to develop it further."
German Minister of Foreign Affairs Joschka Fischer echoed him by noting that to prevent proliferation through political means, especially international treaties, would continue to be the groundwork of security.
Secondly, the purpose of the US NMD is dubious. To justify NMD, US officials argue that it is necessary to prevent missile attack from the so-called "rogue states." But Europeans hardly buy the argument.
Karl Lamers, foreign policy spokesman of Germany's Christian Democratic Union, said in an interview with "Der Tagesspiegel" (Daily Mirror) that Washington's argument is "not serious," because terrorists could attack the United States with "suitcase bombs"instead of missiles.
He noted that the intention of the United States to possess "all the means of attack" while seeking "invincibility" with the NMD system could be regarded by others as pursuing "domination."
In a commentary titled "suspicion in the alliance," the "Sueddeutsche Zeitung" (South German Daily) said more bluntly that "in truth, the missile defense is a project to safeguard the American's leading role" in the world.
Even Britain, America's best friend in Europe, seems unsure.
British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said that "there is no perception" in Britain of a threat that warrants such a missile defense shield.
The transatlantic differences are boiled down to different security concerns arising in the post-cold war era. While the West European countries face threats mainly from conflicts triggered by religious and national hatred in surrounding countries, the United States is preoccupied with the challenge of maintaining sole superpower status.
Thirdly, the feasibility of NMD is questionable.
After meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair Friday, Chirac said he had "tremendous reservations" about the NMD, because it would upset international relations, and would be "hugely expensive," British "Financial Times" reported.
He pointed out that throughout history "the sword" had always prevailed over "the shield," which means that NMD is not as invincible as Washington has advocated.
Shroeder also questioned the feasibility and consequences of NMD at the Munich conference.
The Europeans' criticism on NMD reflects the ever stronger desire of European, especially EU, countries, to step out of the shadows of Washington in issues concerning their security and play a distinct role fit to their success of economic and political integration. The European Union has planned to build its own rapid reaction military force, which has caused uneasiness in Washington.
For the benefit of common interests and maintenance of trans- atlantic relations, European leaders have avoided harsh criticism on NMD, and called diplomatically for "dialogue" with the United States instead. Washington has also promised "consultation." But the prospective talks could by no means be easy, given Europeans' concerns and suspicions.
In This Section
|