By Chris Rizo

Staff Writer

WASHINGTON--The Bush Administration announced Thursday that the United States will withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, a move many Democrats fear may spur an arms race between the world’s nuclear powers.

President George W. Bush made the announcement Thursday after month-long talks fell through between U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin over how the U.S. can test its missile defenses while maintaining the cornerstone agreement that has helped to ensure three decades of nuclear stability.

Calling the treaty one of the last vestiges of the Cold War era, Bush said preserving the accord could hinder the nation’s defenses in a time of rising world tensions.

“Defending the American people is my highest priority as commander-and-chief," Bush said. “I cannot and will not allow the United States to remain in a treaty that prevents us from developing effective defenses.”

House Foreign Relations Committee member Grace Napolitano, D-Montebello, fears that abrogating the 30-year-old agreement could prove insult to already unstable U.S.-China relations.

“Even though the protection of Americans is our paramount goal, there needs to have been adequate consultation with Congress before withdrawing us from a treaty of this significance,” said Napolitano spokesman Saul Japson.

Danielle Babineau of Peace Action said resuming missile defense testing could destabilize relations among the world’s nuclear powers.



“This is the first step on the path to a new world arms race,” said Babineau, who heads the Los Angeles-based pacifist organization.

However, Rep. Adam Schiff said while it’s unfortunate that the treaty could not be amended, he said the “dire predictions” that an international arms race may ensue are overstated.

“The major consequence of our unilateral withdraw is that it feeds the perception around the world that we are willing to go it alone, at a time when we are trying to build worldwide coalitions,” the Pasadena Democrat said.

Schiff added that he is doubtful that the move will aggravate Putin. As for destabilizing Asia: “China will do what it wants, with or without the ABM treaty,” he said.

The pact, negotiated between former U.S. President Richard Nixon and former Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev 30 years ago, banned both nations from testing and deploying a ballistic missile defense system.

“The ABM is a treaty with a nation that no longer exists. The threat that was there, does not exist today,” said Rep. David Dreier, R-Covina.

“We are simply trying to ensure our protection in a world that has dramatically changed since the treaty was first signed.”

Abrogating the pact now allows the Defense Department the live-out the agreed six month non-testing buffer once the treaty breaks, leaving adequate time before the Pentagon plans to build five anti-missile silos at Fort Greely, Alaska next summer.

Chris Rizo can be reached at (916) 449-9006.

Perhaps the most ignorant statements you'll ever hear come from the lips of Congressmembers.

Thus, Democrat Adam Schiff says “China will do what it wants, with or without the ABM treaty.”

What China wants is the status quo, but what we're doing makes this impossible. So China will start building more nuclear weapons & missiles. This will propel an arms race with India and Pakistan, the least stable of the nuclear powers. Where it will end, no one knows.

Here's why: China has 20 nuclear missiles, the same number it has had for over 20 years. It doesn't want to build any more, and it doesn't want the US to be able to blackmail it with a nuclear threat. As things stand, 20 ICBMs are enough for China to feel secure. Break the ABM treaty and build a missile defense system, and China won't feel secure. So it will start building more weapons and more missiles, as well as much cheaper decoys. The decoys are probably all it will ever need, but their military is no more rational than ours, so the arms race will begin.

Not to be outdown, Republican David Dreier says, “The ABM is a treaty with a nation that no longer exists. The threat that was there, does not exist today.”

#1 The first statement is not only foolish, it's a third-hand propaganda line that conservative punidts have been cranking out for years. If the ABM Treaty is a treaty with a country that no longer exists, then what about the permanent seat on the Security Council? And all the debts that Soviet Union racked up? You don't see ANYONE in a position of responsibility in international relations acting on the fiction that Russia is not bound by commitments made by the Soviet Union. Grown-ups just snort at such foolishness. It's only foolish little children, like conservative pundits & members of Congress who believe such fairy tales.

#2 The second statement is downright incomprehensible. If the threat is gone, then why do we need ANY defense???

It appears that some young speechwriter working for Dreier took a night course on the side and learned about something called "parallel construction" and thought he'd try it out just for fun. Only problem is, he forgot to have his example graded before he gave it to his boss. Yet another case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..."

Unless, of course, you read it as "the threat that anyone will effectively object to what we do is gone." This gives away the game. It's not in the least about DEFENSE, it's about OFFENSE. But even Drier dares not say that out loud. He can only hint at it through otherwise incoherent statements.