test_pdf.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ADDRESSING FUTURE ARMS CONTROL AND SECURITY PROBLEMS over this line, over the MTCR threshold, are not just ballistic missiles. They are rockets of any kind that can deliver 500 kilograms to 300 kilometers, including space-launch vehicles and scientific sounding rockets. This was very difficult to get the seven nations, the United States and the rest of the Western economic summit nations, to accept when we negotiated this regime in the mid-1980s—the idea that you put identical controls on military ballistic missiles and on civilian space-launch vehicles and scientific sounding rockets. But it was absolutely necessary in order to have a strong, unambiguous line. The other items controlled are entire unmanned air vehicles, whatever they are called, if they have that range and payload capability I described. Cruise missiles, unmanned air vehicles, reconnaissance drones, target drones. If they have that capability, they are subject to a strong presumption of export denial. Now there are good missiles and bad missiles in the world. Some defensive missiles are very good, and so we needed some way of defining what it was that the regime was going to target with its export controls. That line is the essence of the MTCR. To begin to fuzz that line is to begin to weaken our ability to control the spread of missiles. Let me mention the second policy that could be the basis for future activities. I’ll go back to the MTCR in a bit. The second policy is something that came up a little over a year ago, came to fruition a little over a year ago, that was put together by the 33 governments that are now members of the MTCR. This new policy is called the International Code of Conduct, or the ICOC. Its purpose was to bring the have-nots in on nonproliferation of missiles, not just to have it be a supplier export control regime. The idea of an international code of conduct was developed in the late years of the Clinton administration and then implemented in the Bush administration. So it is a bipartisan concept. It has succeeded in more than tripling the number of governments subscribing to a missile nonproliferation policy. Compared to the 33 members of the MTCR, there are over 100 members of the ICOC now. The la<strong>test</strong> countries to subscribe of which I am aware are Eritrea, Liechtenstein, and Tonga. The ICOC is very loosely written compared to the MTCR, and therein lies the problem. Unlike the MTCR, the ICOC creates a distinction between space-launch vehicles and ballistic missiles. It has much weaker restraints on space-launch vehicles, even though they are interchangeable with ballistic missiles. That was necessary to make this a policy that a large number of nations such as Eritrea, Liechtenstein, and Tonga could accept. Unlike the MTCR, the ICOC prescribes no restraints whatsoever on cruise missiles. It is dedicated entirely to ballistic missiles, which is something that political people seem to think of when they think of missiles. Unlike the MTCR, the ICOC vaguely endorses “cooperative programs” that could actually lead to using ballistic missile programs as bargaining chips to secure other advantages. Unlike the MTCR, the ICOC finds various ways to work with ballistic missile programs by having “programs of transparency.” There is some fear that these looser rules in the ICOC will lead some countries to venueshop and say, well, maybe we haven’t restrained ourselves according to the guidelines of the MTCR, but we have acted within the guidelines of the ICOC, so what’s the problem? The ICOC took something like four years to negotiate, about the same as the MTCR, and it diverted staff resources in countries where sometimes only one person works on missile, nuclear, chemical and biological nonproliferation. It diverted these resources from the business of export control. In short, there is a question whether an approach like the ICOC has sacrificed nonproliferation policy in the name of cosmetic advantages. Now this question about cosmetics versus real nonproliferation becomes even more compelling when we look at the third alternative for moving along in the future, and that’s a proposal that was promoted by Iran in the United Nations and is now taken up by some other governments and the United Nations staff to see if it’s possible to negotiate a binding international treaty against missile proliferation, a sort of missile NPT. I think we’ve already seen from the ICOC experience that bringing the haves and the have-nots together in some missile nonproliferation policy is going to result in some serious compromises. In fact, the history of these kinds of negotiations is that you almost invariably need a sweetener in order to bring the have-nots along, and most people who have proposed ballistic missile nonproliferation treaties have the identical idea about what the sweetener should be. The sweetener in their view should be the sharing of space-launch vehicle technology with countries that agree to forgo ballistic missiles. Not much of a nonproliferation policy. You are actually offering the rocket technology to the countries, the capability in return for a statement about intentions. Maybe not a good way to go, but one that is definitely in the hopper for the future. The fourth approach has already been mentioned this morning, and that’s the Proliferation Security Initiative, which was announced by the president less than a year ago. Under Secretary of State John Bolton will be in Russia this week, seeing if he can get the Russians to join this policy. It complements export controls very strongly by creating an environment in which, if you can somehow evade controls of exports and get the item you want on the high seas or in the air going toward you, it might just be intercepted anyway. So there’s another barrier to 56 56
ADDRESSING FUTURE ARMS CONTROL AND SECURITY PROBLEMS acquiring missiles. Missiles, because of the large number of items they require, as we’ve already mentioned, do not require that every item be intercepted, just enough of them. Entire missile systems are of course so bulky that they are relatively easy to spot when they are in transit. So the Proliferation Security Initiative looks like a winner that is supported by all parts of the political spectrum and that very much complements our nonproliferation policy. The fifth approach is the use of military forces to destroy missiles before they have been launched, so-called counter-force operations. Now this will always be a necessary part of our military planning, but it is difficult. General Habiger could talk about it with more knowledge than perhaps anyone else in this room, but just finding mobile missile systems is difficult enough. In a growing number of nations, such systems are not only difficult to find but they are deeply buried in tunnels and very difficult to destroy. The combination of deep burial and concealment is a daunting military problem and one that we will continue to work at, but not necessarily one that is guaranteed to be satisfactorily solved any time soon. And the sixth and last alternative for dealing with the problem of missile proliferation is missile defense. What I’d like to do is contrast and compare the first and the sixth of these alternatives—missile nonproliferation, the MTCR on the one hand, and missile defense on the other hand. As Senator Biden said, missile defense is not a substitute for the difficult work of nonproliferation. But it may be—and he didn’t say this, but I am—a complement to missile nonproliferation. In fact, many people from all parts of the political spectrum are coming to the point of view that missile defense and the MTCR may indeed be complementary. The president’s NSPD—that’s National Security Presidential Directive 23, issued last year—in fact said that missile defense and the MTCR are complementary. Why are they complementary? Well, missile defense attempts to shoot at a missile in its boost, mid-course, and re-entry phase, while missile nonproliferation attempts to shoot at a missile in its research, development and production phase. They’re all trying to stop the same thing. It’s just that they’re shooting at different points in the trajectory. This is indeed complementary. There are other ways in which the two complement each other. If missile defense is likely to work—and that’s always been a question—but if it is likely to be effective, it makes it less attractive to get in the business of developing missiles in the first place, very much complementing the efforts of the MTCR to stop development. On the other hand, if the MTCR is effective in slowing down or stopping the proliferation of missiles, it reduces the stress that missile defense systems face. So they really can complement each other. The problem is that they can also compete with each other. Some missile defense systems are over that line that I talked about—the ability to deliver 500 kilograms to 300 kilometers—not the systems that are in use or in major development right now in most of the countries: the Patriot, the Medium Extended Air Defense (MEAD) system, which is being developed by the U.S. and Europe, most of the versions of the Russian S-300 system, or the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. These are not over the line. But the Israeli Arrow system is over the line, and in fact has been originally demonstrated as a target missile simulating an offensive missile to be intercepted by another Arrow. The United States sea-launch system, the SM-3, is slightly over the line. The Ground-Based Interceptor, the large missile defense rockets that are to be based in Alaska and the Vandenberg Air Force Base are way over the line. The Kinetic Energy Interceptor, which is now in the design phase as lategeneration United States missile defense system, has been described as a small ICBM. So by sharing missile defense systems, we may be sharing very large rockets. These large rockets can be used offensively. For example, the SA-2, a large Soviet air defense missile, was adapted as an offensive missile by India, China, Iran, Iraq, and Serbia. In fact, one of the plans that was discovered to be the next step in Iraq’s clandestine missile development program was to take the SA-2 engines, which were supposed to be limited to being used on missiles compliant with the United Nations’ resolutions, and to adapt them to missiles along the Indian design or bigger, to enable them to reach ranges of up to 500 kilometers. So missile defense rockets can pose problems. At the same time, the desire to share missile defense technology can pose problems for missile nonproliferation. NSPD-23 states that the United States should administer the MTCR so it does not impede missile defense cooperation. Well, what does this mean? Does this mean we should begin to fuzz that line in order to spread missile defense interceptors? If we do, would we be able to construct another line, or will we just go to missile defense as an alternative to missile nonproliferation? This is an issue that the policymakers are going to have to grapple with in the very near future. My suggestion is that there are many effective missile defense systems below the line that can be shared, and that in the future the major role of missile defense will be to defend very large areas. The Ground-Based Interceptor, from one site, could defend all of Europe. So many of the nations being defended will not have access to the rockets themselves. And in fact, there’s no reason for the United States to even give up control of those rockets. We can operate the defensive system and unify the control of it with all the other missile defense systems in the world. It’s militarily attractive, and it’s certainly attractive from the point of view of nonproliferation. 57 57
Page 1 and 2:
1 The Paul C. Warnke Conference on
Page 3 and 4:
AUL C. W PAUL AUL C. WARNKE Ambassa
Page 5 and 6: global arms control measures, and b
Page 7 and 8: will be here. And we also have Paul
Page 9 and 10: PANEL ONE NE Assessing the Record o
Page 11 and 12: ASSESSING THE RECORD OF ARMS CONTRO
Page 23 and 24: CHAIR • John Steinbruner ASSESSIN
Page 25 and 26: PANEL TWO Meeting Today’s Prolife
Page 27 and 28: MEETING TODA ODAY’S PROLIFERA ROL
Page 41 and 42: KEYNOTE SPEAKER JOHN ISAACS [Presid
Page 43 and 44: SENA ENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN that Sandi
Page 45 and 46: SENA ENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN If you had
Page 47 and 48: SENA ENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN not it was
Page 49 and 50: S enator Joseph Biden is the senior
Page 51 and 52: PANEL THREE Addressing Future Arms
Page 53 and 54: ADDRESSING FUTURE ARMS CONTROL AND
Page 55: ADDRESSING FUTURE ARMS CONTROL AND
Page 67 and 68: SENA ENATOR JACK REED power will li
Page 69 and 70: SENA ENATOR JACK REED Cold War worl
Page 71 and 72: SENA ENATOR JACK REED SEN. REED: It
Page 73 and 74: GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Georgetown Un
Page 75: ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIA SSOCIATION The
show all

test_pdf.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?