Opinion - Editorials   

Putin and missile defence

Russia's proposal to the United States that it relocate the `early warning' infrastructure of the planned missile interceptors from Poland and the Czech Republic to Azerbaijan has underscored two things: the hollowness of Washington's strategic rationale for missile defence as well as the deep divisions within the G8's ranks on fundamental issues of security. On the sidelines of the Heiligendamm summit, President Vladimir Putin told President George Bush that if the idea behind placing radars and interceptor batteries on the Russian border was really to protect Europe from Iranian missiles, the powerful Russian-operated Qabala radar station in Azerbaijan would do the job much better. Not only was Qabala much closer to Iran or any other potential launching area in West Asia or North Africa; its footprint would also "protect" the south-eastern flank of Europe in a way a radar in the Czech Republic could not. Mr. Bush and his advisers were taken aback by this dramatic proposal and promised to mull over it and come back to the Russian leader as soon as possible. But judging from the chorus of `expert' opinion on the subject, it is already evident that Washington is looking for ways to reject the Russian offer as unsuitable on grounds of the `geometry of intercept.'

Whether in Europe or Asia, the Bush administration's missile defence programme has nothing to do with a threat from Iran, North Korea, or any other state. The idea is to convert the strategic superiority the United States sees itself enjoying over Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union into a superiority that is overwhelming, and to neutralise China's deterrent vis-à-vis the continental U.S. But missile defence is self-defeating, like the arms races that preceded it. In order to neutralise the potential effect of America's missile interceptors, Russia has tested a new class of missiles and will soon be ready to deploy them. China too is looking to do the same thing in rocketry by playing catch up with the U.S. and Russia in the realm of anti-satellite weaponry. Mr. Putin has made an astute gamble that his offer will sharpen the debate within Europe about the risks of chasing the missile defence chimera. The Russians have also broadened the debate by pointing out that Washington's Iran-centric missile defence plans are hardly likely to create a conducive atmosphere for dialogue with Tehran. Whichever way one looks at it, missile defence is a bad idea that can only lead to the quantitative and qualitative enhancement of missiles by potential adversaries or an increasing reliance on what has come to be known as `asymmetric warfare.' Missile defences do not engender strategic stability, especially in a nuclearised environment. The Indian government needs to correct its dubious posture on missile defence in light of these factors.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Putin and missile defence
Musharraf's retreat
U.S. seeks to keep EU and Russia apart
In Yavatmal, life goes on
G8's promises look empty
Dealing with illegal migrants, the U.S. way
Corrections and Clarifications
Nuclear deal
CEO salaries
Ford fiasco
On wearing helmets

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu