IMPACTS: NMD LEADS TO DANGEROUS USA UNILATERALISM
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE IS A SYMPTOM OF UNILATERALISM IN USA FOREIGN POLICY
Financial Times (London), October 21, 1999, SECTION: COMMENT & ANALYSIS; Pg. 23, HEADLINE: Domestic drama may spill on to world stage: An act of defiance by the US Senate could return to haunt America by rekindling the nuclear arms race // ln-10-29-99-acs
The trend to unilateralism runs deep. It has been there since Ronald Reagan's Star Wars missile defence initiative in the 1980s. It was undoubtedly reinforced by the end of the cold war balance-of-terror. Since then, America's irritation with the pusillanimity of its allies in dealing with rogue regimes, such as Iraq, Iran, Libya and Cuba, has made matters worse.
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE WILL BECOME A LICENSE FOR USA UNILATERALISM
Financial Times (London), October 29, 1999, SECTION: COMMENT & ANALYSIS; Pg. 19, HEADLINE: Licence for a unilateral America: Washington is deluding itself if it thinks a new anti-missile defence system will enhance its national security // ln-acs-11-11-99
Here Washington deludes itself. Just as the repudiation of the CTBT will encourage nuclear proliferation, so any attempt by the US to insulate itself from the realities of the nuclear world will spur others to challenge its hegemony.
At its most obvious, such a fundamental rewriting of the rules of international security would be a gift to those in Russia who see that country's only future as one of conflict with the US. It would confirm the conviction that Nato's eastwards expansion was nothing but imperialism.
More than that, a national missile shield would decouple American security interests from those of its European allies in Nato. It would provide Washington with the excuse not to come to the aid of its friends - or, conversely, to intervene as and when without their approval or consent. In short, it would be a licence for unilateralism.
ABROGATION OF THE ABM TREATY WOULD SIGNAL A NEW PHASE OF USA UNILATERALISM, WHICH POSES A HUGE THREAT TO ALL OF HUMANITY
The Straits Times (Singapore), October 25, 1999 SECTION: Commentary Analysis; Pg. 40 HEADLINE: Starting a nuclear race? // ln-acs-11-11-99
Taken together with the refusal to ratify CTBT, the US desire to gut the ABM signals a dangerous new trend in its foreign policy. Mr Clinton was wrong to describe this trend as the "new isolationism". A more accurate term would be "unilateralism" -the belief that the US can act independently of other nations; a total indifference to the effects its policies have on friends and potential foes alike. During the Cold War, fear and a strong domestic peace movement forced the US to negotiate with the Soviets. Now that the Cold War has ended, US arrogance is no longer restrained, and it is plunging the world, headlong, into another nuclear arms race. Humanity was lucky to come out unscathed the first time round. Will it be lucky again?