In early December, at a meeting with NATO defense ministers, U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen tried to sign-up Washington's imperialist allies in Europe as partners in the missile shield project. Cohen, citing threats from "rogue states," said, "It is important for our allies to understand that the threat is real, that it will intensify in coming years, and that it will put their own populations and their own forces at risk.

The U.S. defense secretary told the ministers that the United States was willing to provide them with a theater missile shield that would give them the same kind of protection as the United States.

No government in Europe, however, is willing to take part in the program.

The imperialists in Europe have several concerns about Washington's theater missile shield plans. While they join Cohen's propaganda about "rogue states," which helps them promote an arms buildup in Europe, several ministers said that they were not persuaded the advantages of an antimissile shield outweigh the risks.

Even the new NATO secretary general and former British defense secretary, George Robertson, who has a history of hanging onto Washington's coattails, said European allies had already raised "a number of profound questions" about its potential impact on the alliance.

France's defense minister, Alain Richard, said, "We must be very cautious about a program that could end up damaging our security if it offers indirect encouragement to an arms race."

His comment reflects wider concerns among European powers that the antimissile shield could lead to the abrogation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty with Russia, an accord that during the cold war balanced the nuclear arms striking capacity of Washington and Moscow. Washington admits its plan is in violation of the agreement.

For example, radar tracking stations in Britain and Denmark would have to be upgraded to make an antimissile shield function effectively. But that more squarely poses the question of London and Copenhagen having to break the ABM treaty as well.

In addition to citing North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as threats because of their development of long-range missiles, the Washington Post reported Cohen saying, "Russia's long-range nuclear missile threat would remain 'robust and lethal' and that China was likely to possess dozens of land- and sea-based missiles with smaller nuclear warheads." This statement, more than the specter of "rogue states," helps point to the main targets of Washington's moves to develop a first-strike capacity.

For London and Paris, the two nuclear powers in Europe, an escalated arms race between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing would marginalize their small nuclear forces and make them more dependent on Washington's military power. It can also make them a target of the stronger nuclear powers, even of Washington.

Since Washington's European allies are close to Russia, they will be the most exposed to the risks of a continental antimissile shield that Washington can retreat behind.

Richard pointed out that the enormous investments Washington's plan would require might be better spent on other military projects. He warned that Russia and China would respond with measures such as missiles tipped with multiple warheads designed to overwhelm such defenses.

Carl-Erik Isacsson is a member of the metalworkers union in Södertälje, Sweden.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home