|
hardy perennial of the "Peanuts" cartoon strip featured
a series in which Lucy earnestly promises Charlie Brown that she
can be trusted to hold a football in place for him to kick. The
humor lay in the fact that, time after time and despite all his
better instincts, the would-be kicker would fall for it. He would
run at the ball only to have Lucy sweep it aside at the last moment,
causing Charlie Brown to kick nothing but air and wind up flat on
his back, fuming that he had allowed himself to be made the object
of ridicule by Lucy once more.
Russian President
Vladimir Putin seems bent on pulling off a similar bait-and-switch
as his summit with President Bush resumes Wednesday in Crawford,
Texas. At their joint press conference Tuesday in Washington, the
two leaders indicated that they remained at odds about the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. But both said that they and
their subordinates would continue intensive consultations on the
matter in the hope of reaching an agreement about missile defenses.
Therein lies
the rub. The agreement being urged on President Bush by the Russians
(with some help from Secretary of State Colin Powell and the usual
suspects among the media elite and professional arms-control advocates),
would be the functional equivalent of Lucy's flim-flam operation.
Pursuant to it, Moscow would agree not to complain about certain
upcoming tests of U.S. antimissile systems in exchange for an American
commitment not to depart for the time being from the ABM treaty,
which prohibits (among other things) any effective missile defense
of the United States from being deployed.
Like Lucy's
blandishments, the proponents of such a deal are telling Mr. Bush
what he wants to hear. They argue that we are not in any position
to deploy any missile defenses, so no harm will be done if the treaty's
ban on deployment is preserved. Realistic development and testing
is the name of the game at the moment, they say. And they blithely
assure President Bush that he can always exercise the nation's right
to withdraw from the ABM Treaty later — without needlessly
risking a contretemps with Putin now, at a time when his help on
the global war on terrorism is said to be of surpassing importance.
Unfortunately,
whereas Charlie Brown had only his own mortification to rue when
he succumbed to temptation, President Bush's regrets would be far
more serious. In particular, he would likely be obliged to sacrifice
his oft-repeated — and strategically crucial — commitment
to defend the American people against ballistic-missile attack.
The president
did not promise, after all, simply to figure out how to defend the
United States against this real and growing danger. He pledged to
deploy such systems — and do so "at the earliest possible
time." If, at the end of the day, we remain unable to put into
place effective defenses, it will not matter much whether various
experiments have been conducted in a complex and realistic way or
not.
What is more,
the fact that the ABM Treaty's prohibitions on deployments remain
intact will tend to screw-up not only the fielding of missile defenses,
but their development and testing phases, to boot. This is particularly
true if the two presidents wind up leaving ill defined the exact
nature of what tests and developmental activities are permitted.
In that case, government lawyers and unhelpful Democrats on Capitol
Hill can be relied upon to take (and impose) a very restrictive
view of what the United States is actually allowed to do short of
any deployment.
It would be
especially ironic if such an outcome were to be the extent of the
Bush legacy with regard to missile defense. No president, to date,
has done more to make the case for defending us and created a better
atmosphere in which to do so.
In the wake
of September 11, in particular, Mr. Bush has rightly argued that
antimissile systems are more needed than ever before. Hostile congressional
Democrats have largely backed away from a confrontation. Opponents
in the press and arms-control communities are getting no traction.
And, at least at those times when Putin is persuaded that the president
is going to go ahead — with or without Russia's acquiescence
— the former KGB officer recognizes that the best he can hope
for is some political and/or economic concessions for yielding to
the inevitable.
If the new
relationship President Bush has been trying to forge with Vladimir
Putin is to amount to anything positive — let alone a post-Cold
War friendship characterized by trust, cooperation, and a constructive
"strategic framework," Mr. Bush must make sure that there
is no bait-and-switch on missile defenses at the summit. It will
be no laughing matter if, when the meetings are over, the Russians
are accorded a continuing veto over any aspect of U.S. missile-defense
programs.
|
