U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE: SHIFTING FOREIGN MEDIA PERSPECTIVES

President Bush's election brought U.S. missile defense (MD) back to the forefront of the world media's agenda, after a lull following the previous administration's deferral decision. As in our July 10, 2000 analysis, "Foreign Media On NMD," "anti-MD" editorials continued to outnumber "pro-MD" ones by a wide margin, with resistance markedly strong in China and some liberal Western and Russian media. Pockets of support were found in Europe and Canada, especially in the conservative and centrist press, as well as in Taiwanese papers. In contrast to our previous analysis, numerous editorials from NATO countries, Russia, East and South Asia were categorized as "uncommitted." While typically accepting MD as inevitable and, at the same time, voicing their reservations, they refrained from coming down conclusively for or against its deployment. Often, they took a wait-and-see attitude, withholding support pending consultations between the U.S. and their governments. The report tracks foreign editorial views on MD from December 14, 2000, when Mr. Bush officially become president-elect, through March 7, 2001. Editorials from Non-NATO Europe, the Mideast and Latin America were insufficient for full analysis; African posts submitted no editorials. Specific regional concerns are discussed below, accompanied by representative quotes.

Foreign Media Activity On MD: A Global Overview

(Based on sample of 353 editorials from 39 countries from 12/14/00-3/7/01)

EDITORS: Katherine Starr, Irene Marr, Stephen Thibeault

************************************************************** **

Media Views Of MD: Regional Perspectives, Major Concerns And Representative Quotes

Regional Breakdown On MD Based On Total of 353 Editorials (12/14-3/7)

NATO (EUROPE/CANADA)

NATO: THE PRO, THE CON AND THE UNCOMMITTED

While criticism of MD continued to far surpass support for the U.S. plan in NATO capitals, proponents as a percentage of the whole grew markedly from last year's report figures. Critics commonly hailed from the liberal press in Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Canada and some smaller West European capitals. Conservative and center-right German, Danish and Canadian analysts led MD supporters. In addition, a growing segment of "uncommitted" editorials emerged in recent months, roughly equivalent to the "anti-MD" numbers. "Pro-MD" and "uncommitted" commentators both typically referred to the inevitability of MD: The former often using it to make the case that Allies are better off "getting behind the U.S. shield" and demonstrating loyalty to Washington; the latter stressing the need for intra-Alliance dialogue in the face of U.S. determination. Viewing U.S. assurances of consultations--with Allies, as well as with Russia and China--as "good news," these "uncommitted" writers cautioned that an effective shield requires the support of "like-minded Allies." Many seemed to predicate their support for MD on whether the U.S. and Russia could work out some accommodation on the ABM Treaty. Some in this camp also suggested a "trade-off:" a European greenlight on U.S. missile defense in exchange for U.S. acceptance of EU plans for a rapid reaction force. In anti-MD commentary, while U.S. unilateralism continued to register as a concern, it was no longer dominant. More salient were worries that MD would undermine "global stability"--and its "cornerstone," the ABM Treaty--and fear that the U.S. plan could spark a "new arms race," particularly in Asia.

NATO: PRO-MD RATIONALES

Issue-related commentary from 32 editorials; some editorials contained more than one comment.

PRO-MD

BRITAIN--Centrist Independent (1/15): "Fortunately for us, the Americans could only protect themselves by protecting us.... But we would still have a moral duty to contribute to our own defense. NMD would not eliminate the threat of mass destruction [i.e., by nuclear terrorists]...but it would remove the threat of ballistic missiles fired by rogue states."

Conservative Daily Mail (2/16): "Blair is well aware of the consequences of supporting America's [MD].... A bitter reaction is certain from the EU.... Yet [he] is right.... The possibility of a limited missile attack from rogue states...can't be ignored. If this revolutionary system works and can be deployed without sparking a new arms race--both big ifs--then the prime minister has no responsible choice but to agree."

FRANCE--Right-of-center Le Figaro (2/21): "It would appear that the U.S. is deadset on its NMD program.... European objections will not deter the U.S. The only option is for Europe to become as powerful as the U.S. by cooperating with it."

GERMANY--Right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (2/5): "Old threats no longer exist but new ones have arisen, and NMD is only directed against these new threats. The German government would be well advised to review its negative position and not blindly adopt Russian arguments. A limited anti-missile defense does not destroy the strategic balance nor necessarily stir up the arms race."

Right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (2/7): "The fact that all sides are now talking about a defense system that protects the Alliance [and] that even Russia is offering [its ABM plan] shows...that threats are not just figments of the U.S. imagination...and that the ABM Treaty is not...sacrosanct.... The U.S. wanting to preserve its security interests...[and] strengthen its military capability...would also be in [its Allies'] interests."

Right-of-center Muenchner Merkur (2/26): "The most recent statements coming out of Moscow indicate that the Russians are beginning to embrace the idea of an East-West accommodation.... Nobody believes anymore [Russia's] threat to begin a new arms race.... NMD is much more realistic than its utopian predecessor SDI."

Right-of-center Die Welt (3/1): "The German government is now the first in Europe to back Bush's project fully.... The change in Germany's position will make the other European nations follow suit and protect the continent as much as possible against hostile missiles.... MD will trigger gigantic investments in the high-tech fields."

DENMARK--Center-right Berlingske Tidende (3/5): "Bush has made it very clear that the missile shield will be implemented.... Europeans are becoming more positive. The risk of a transtlantic split appears minimal.... The chances of reaching agreement with the Russians look much brighter.... It is not in Denmark's interests to stick a wrench in the works.... The Danish government ought to state that, in principle, it supports [MD]."

PORTUGAL--Influential, moderate-left Publico (2/11): "Why should a country that has the technology and economic might to defend itself...renounce building these defenses?... Instead of asking the U.S. to do the impossible, it would be helpful if Europe thought a bit about what is being proposed, i.e., a scheme based on a protective system...instead of the current [MAD].... Also Europe itself might benefit from such a 'shield.'"

CANADA--Conservative National Post (12/19): "Missile defense will be put in place with or without Canada. Ottawa should support a system that will make Canadians safer."

Tabloid-style Ottawa Citizen (2/2): "A limited missile defense system...is a reasonable and responsible idea.... Chretien...should tell [Bush] that Canada, as a partner in Norad and NATO, will help develop NMD."

Conservative Ottawa Sun (2/7): "Canada should...end [its] wavering over [MD].... The American nuclear umbrella...has given us convenient comfort for more than half a century. We're hardly in a position now to start complaining about U.S. attempts to improve it with a purely defensive shield."

Conservative National Post (2/23): "The Chretien government appears to be approaching a welcome reversal of the policy of outright opposition to missile defense.... If the prime minister were now to support the program explicitly, this country would not be the last of Washington's Allies to get behind the shield."

NATO: UNCOMMITTED--RESERVATIONS AND CONCERNS

Issue-related commentary found in 68 editorials; some editorials contained more than one comment

UNCOMMITTED

BRITAIN--Independent Economist (1/20): "Outsiders cannot demand that a country give up a method of protecting itself--particularly if it offers them the same protection.... On the other hand, the technology plainly is not ready...and there are diplomatic reasons for caution: pressing ahead precipitously would throw away a potential deal with Russian to change the [ABM] Treaty...and might provoke China into increasing its own long-range missile force."

Liberal Guardian (2/23): "Blair can offer a deal. He might tell Bush that he could help him work out a plan for collective missile defense acceptable to European Allies and others, so long as the president and his top brass stop branding the EU's...rapid reaction force a threat to NATO."

FRANCE--Right-of-center Le Figaro (1/31): "It would be useful if the EU considered the Bush proposal for a common anti-missile shield, while adding its own constructive input to it."

GERMANY--Left-of-center Die Zeit (2/8): "Rumsfeld's message [in Munich] was clear: NMD will come..... There was also good news.... The U.S. will consult its partners, and it even offered to extend the umbrella to Europeans.... But first, it is up to the Bush government to discuss the model it wants and its price.... It is now up to the U.S. to prove that cancelling the [ABM] Treaty will not result in a new arms race.... The vigorous message from Europe must be: no missile defense without arms control talks, no arms control talks without us."

Right-of-center Berliner Morgenpost (2/12): "The [U.S.' MD] concept is strategically reasonable, but, for the time being, only in theory. The Americans must still prove that it is possible 'to shoot down a bullet in flight.'... [But] the possibility of helping better protect the world from a nuclear inferno should not be rejected from the outset."

Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung (2/18): "Thus far, [MD's] price is too high as far as political, military, budget and diplomatic matters are concerned.... NMD is an ambitious and high complex project that can increase security...if it is accompanied by the right policy.... But NMD can also be a breeding ground for...a new escalation in arms modernization.... Bush and his team now have the chance to enter into a serious discussion.... This shield will be effective only if it is...supported by like-minded Allies."

Left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (2/22): "If growing arms modernization among the nuclear powers, as a result of NMD, is to be avoided, Secretary Powell must realize his promise to talk with all sides involved--Russians, Chinese and Europeans."

Deutschland Radio (2/22): "The U.S. secretary of state again gave assurances that not only the Allies but also China and Russia will be consulted. Hopefully, this will take place soon in order that realistic and sober discussion take the place of propagandistic bickering."

ITALY--Centrist, influential La Stampa (2/5): "Let's say that it is unavoidable, that the big American ally has decided to proceed.... What can the Europeans do? First, they should not be caught in the usual Russian game of dividing the Atlantic Alliance.... Second, they should make their reservations heard in Washington, so that the strategic turn, if it really occurs, will be agreed upon or at least coordinated, not only with Europe but also with Russia and China. "

Leading, business-oriented Il Sole-24 Ore (2/28): "Bush's [MD] plans appear, on the one hand, to be realistic and open to Allied participation, while, on the other, they pose difficult problems with respect to military expenses."

BELGIUM--Independent Catholic De Standaard (2/28): "Powell clearly succeeded in ironing out disagreement over the Bush administration's [MD] plans. That does not mean that the Allies are now in favor of it, but that friendly discussion is now taking place."

DENMARK--Center-right Berlingske Tidende (2/23): "Russia too appears to be showing signs of altering its stance...[and] now seems more intent on reaching some agreement with Washington.... If agreement is reached between the U.S. and Russia, it could pave the way for official Danish acceptance [of the project]. Russia's changing position shows the importance of keeping political options open."

Center-left Politiken (2/27): "If a few [European] pleasantries about the [U.S.] vision of a missile defense can improve chances for U.S. acceptance of the far more tangible and more practical EU defense initiative, then it will be a trade-off that makes a lot of sense."

SPAIN--Center-left El Pais (2/13): "The contemplated reduction of the [U.S.'] nuclear arsenal makes its anti-missile defense program more palatable.... What is not clear is whether it will work."

NATO: ANTI-MD CONCERNS

Issue-related commentary from 71 editorials; some editorials contained more than one comment.

ANTI-MD

BRITAIN--Liberal Guardian (12/21): "If NMD ever did happen, Russia and especially China would feel obliged to counter it.... Whitehall, like Paris and Berlin, has made these arguments copiously. They now face a Washington peopled by voices...scornful of Russia, arrogant about China, intolerant of European sensitivities, overwhelmingly impressed by the case for defending U.S. territory."

Centrist Independent (1/13): "The case against NMD is simple: It is expensive, it is unproven, it will destabilize arms control efforts, and it does not even meet the most likely threats from rogue nuclear states, chief among them the 'bomb-in-a-suitcase' scenario."

FRANCE--Left-of-center Liberation (1/5): "No one contests the U.S.' right to protect itself...[but] no one understands the urgency for the most powerful nation to deploy an inefficient system...that could destabilize the present strategic order [and] put in question nuclear deterrence."

Left-of-center Le Monde (2/2): "The U.S. strategic shield...is without doubt the detonator of the biggest strategic crisis in the new century. It could trigger a new Sino-Russian alliance...and cause dissension in the Atlantic Alliance.... Deploying a shield that will push Beijing into a new arms race is madness."

GERMANY--Left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (12/28): "In light of the destructive consequences of NMD not only for the ABM Treaty but also for the entire international arms control system, the public silence of European politicians on this matter is spooky.... NMD represents not only the U.S.' desire for invulnerability, but also its desire to act on its own on a global scale."

Right-of-center Rhein-Zeitung (2/14): "The best missile shield offers only porous protection. The new U.S. government wants to spend billions of dollars worshipping the myth of invulnerability."

Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung (2/18): "If the U.S. really is in possession of information on Russian missile sales to rogue states, it should present it and focus on persuasive diplomatic work with Moscow, instead of research in NMD laboratories."

ITALY--Centrist, influential La Stampa (2/5): "The space shield...risks kicking off a second Cold War, pitting Beijing and Moscow against Washington, and creating resentment between Europe and the U.S. It also risks creating an arms race in Japan, Taiwan, Pakistan and India."

Liberal Il Foglio (2/15): "Bush wants a more complete and intimidating space shield.... This decision will inevitably lead to tension with Moscow...and Europe, not to mention China."

BELGIUM--Independent Catholic De Standaard (2/8): "Russia, and, even more, China are totally opposed to NMD for understandable reasons.... The least the EU should do is make it clear to the U.S...that a defense system that protects the entire U.S. territory--and even that of its Allies--is unacceptable."

DENMARK--Center-left Politiken (1/25): "NMD could unleash a new arms race...and increase tension between NATO Allies and...between the U.S. and Russia and China."

Left-wing Information (3/7): "It would be a mistake to reject the possibility that a threat of nuclear attack exists, but...the threat presented by rogue states should be addressed by other means, such as military sanctions [and] weapons inspections."

NORWAY--Social Democratic Dagsavisen (1/20): "Signals from Bush and his people hint at a desire for increased isolationism and a belief that the U.S. can hide behind missile defense."

PORTUGAL--Influential, moderate-left Publico (2/18): "If there were clear threats to world peace on the horizon, perhaps Bush's strategy could be justified. But there aren't.... NMD only makes sense against Russia or China, and its creation...endangers world stability."

SPAIN--Conservative La Vanguardia (1/29): "The U.S.' promise to share [MD] technology with Allies...[and] the U.S.' goodwill gesture to unilaterally reduce [its] nuclear arsenal...do not compensate for building a defense system that would upset the current strategic balance."

Left-of-center El Pais (3/2): "The U.S. is initiating a new arms race, without yet knowing who its enemies are.... The so-called rogue states of Libya, Iraq, Iran and North Korea do not represent real threats."

CANADA--Liberal Toronto Star (1/29): "The technology doesn't work.... The threat from 'rogue' states...appears to be receding.... Can Russian and China be persuaded to accept missile defenses as harmless? Or will they upgrade and multiply their nuclear forces?... How will nuclear mavericks India and Pakistan react if China boosts its arms?... It's not hard to see an arms race developing."

Leading Globe and Mail (2/3): "[Bush and Rumsfeld] are pressing U.S. Allies to get in step.... Canada should resist this pressure. Missile defense poses a direct threat to Canadian security. If the Americans break the taboo on missile defenses...Russia and China are likely to react by building better offenses and aiming them at North America, undoing years of progress on arms control and possibly igniting a new arms race."

RUSSIA

RUSSIAN MEDIA GRAPPLES WITH INEVITABILITY OF MD

In coming to terms with the perceived inevitability of the U.S. MD program, Russian media have backed off their previous renunciation of the plan--largely due to signs that NATO nations had lost their erstwhile resolve to oppose the U.S. position. Moscow papers' overwhelmingly negative opinion against MD under the previous administration waned noticeably. An undercurrent of resignation that MD was all but a done deal led many analysts to judge the Russian government's opposition to MD and intransigence on ABM foolhardy and "pointless." In contrast to the July 2000 analysis, more than a third of the commentary shifted from the anti- to the uncommitted column. Rather than either rejecting or embracing the U.S. project, uncommitted analysts stressed the need for more Russian-U.S. dialogue, with many advocating continued negotiations on the ABM Treaty. These observers also expressed ambivalence toward developments in U.S.- NATO relations and tended to downplay the U.S. claims of "rogue state" threats. Nearly half of the commentary remained fully opposed to MD, with fears of U.S. unilateralism, a renewed arms race and the breakdown of the ABM Treaty sharing equal footing as the top reasons for concern. Some critics were skeptical of both the U.S.' threat assessment and technical viability of MD. According to the most recent wave of editorials, pro-MD opinion in Russia amounted to more of a tacit acceptance or acquiescence than any explicit endorsement or praise for the project. Most of the writers in this camp advised that given the apparent inevitability of MD and European resignation, cooperation with the U.S. was simply a "pragmatic" course of action and they tended to regard the U.S. threat concerns as justified. Some expressed more of a back-handed support for MD, criticizing the Russian government's arms control policy for attempting to stoke a rivalry in which it can't compete and for supporting an "outdated" ABM Treaty.

RUSSIA: PRO-MD RATIONALES

Issue-related commentary from 13 editorials; some editorials contained more than one comment.

PRO-MD

Reformist Segodnya (1/17): "For many years Moscow has insisted that it is impossible to build a 100-percent reliable ABM system. If so, why object to a reasonably modified 1972 treaty? There is no way we can make America change its mind. General Aleksandr Piskunov...says that ABM can effectively intercept only individual missiles, so it can't upset strategic stability. So there is no reason for us to fear America's NMD."

Reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (2/6): "Ranting and raving won't stop the U.S. plans. It's better to start negotiations now, not in five years, when they (the Americans) have a new ABM system and we have something else."

Reformist Segodnya (2/14): "Practically all serious experts agree that NMD will not violate strategic stability, since Russia will retain its capability to overcome any of the proposed missile defense systems.... So confrontation with America over a modified ABM Treaty is pointless and at variance with this country's interests. Conversely, an active dialogue with the United States on ABM would bring Russia considerable political and economic dividends."

Reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (2/23): "The U.S.' concern over the proliferation of nuclear and rocket technologies has been warranted.... [Certain] ministries have not made sure that all its enterprises abide by the rules. That automatically disavows the many statements by Moscow that it has undeviatingly followed its non-proliferation obligations. So Condoleezza Rice is right--Washington does have cause for worry."

Reformist Izvestiya (3/2): "Europe's opposition to the U.S. plans, limited as it is, has dwindled further since Russia published its Euro-ABM plan, 'incoherent' from the West's standpoint. Going into a frenzy over ABM does not help dialogue on an important matter such as crumbling control over rocket and nuclear technologies that land where they should not."

Reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (3/7): "The answer must be in the affirmative, based on Moscow's hard-headed stand on ABM. Two things have long since been clear to Russian experts: One, the U.S. will deploy a missile defense; and two, the NMD plans pose no danger to Russia's nuclear deterrent.... Our diplomats have all these years harped on the 1972 ABM treaty as a 'cornerstone of strategic stability,' without bothering to reason this point."

RUSSIA: UNCOMMITTED--RESERVATIONS AND CONCERNS

Issue-related commentary from 27 editorials; some editorials contained more than one comment.

UNCOMMITTED

Reformist Segodnya (2/5): "Nobody...seriously believes that Russia can effectively compete with the U.S. in a new arms race. The only way out is (for Russia) to accept a modified ABM Treaty, in return for no less important concessions, say, nuclear arms cuts. Moscow does not look ready for such a compromise yet, though."

Reformist Noviye Izvestiya (2/7): "Russia's hopes to recruit a united Europe in a campaign to resist the U.S.' ABM plans may prove untenable.... It is a done deal. Whether Russia, China or Europe agree and whether the ABM treaty will be kept up is not important. With the EU out, Moscow has been left with an assortment of Third World countries, as well as North Korea and China. Bush has decided he will not waste his time and effort on them."

Reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (2/13): "Moscow, no doubt, counts on support from Germany and other Western European countries in the upcoming dialogue with the United States on ABM. The French, German and Swedish defense ministers...said they were not sure that the new U.S. (defense) system will be effective or useful for Europe. Still, as shown by talks between Joschka Fischer and Igor Ivanov (in Moscow) yesterday, Russia can hardly expect Western Europe to side with it fully."

Reformist Izvestiya (2/21): "The last hopes that Russia can lure NATO's Europeans with a European missile defense are all but dead. Russia will have to look for an 'appropriate response.' A source in the Kremlin said, 'We must react at once. This means that we have to find the money for a new arms race.'"

Reformist, youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (2/21): "At the talks, Robertson was not particularly inclined to listen, and pushed Washington's arguments in favor of NMD instead. The secretary general was acting more as an advocate of U.S.-British interests than as a spokesman for all members of the Alliance, including those who are increasingly concerned over the (U.S.) plans."

Reformist Vremya MN (2/21): "Debates on the (ABM) Treaty have shown convincingly that the things the Europeans and Americans share are far more numerous than the things that divide them. Therefore, using perceived contradictions within NATO to save the ABM Treaty is pointless."

Reformist Segodnya (2/22): "Western analysts have hinted all along that Russia's missile defense initiative will hardly come to pass, since it aims at splitting the Alliance."

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2/27): "The Cairo rendezvous brought no sensations or breakthroughs, but it showed clearly that neither side wants confrontation despite serious contradictions on major issues between them. So far, the only positive outcome of the meeting is that Moscow and Washington will conduct a dialogue on ABM, which gives hope that the U.S. administration, for all its harsh statements, will not pull out of the 1972 treaty to build NMD."

Reformist Segodnya (3/1): "Speaking to both houses of the U.S. Congress, President Bush for the first time formally called for the renunciation of the ABM treaty which Moscow considers a 'cornerstone' of military stability in the world. Russia has retaliated by threatening to review other arms control accords. The threat of an arms race, however, will hardly stop the Bush administration from creating NMD. Washington, not without reason, believes that Russia simply has no resources for an 'appropriate response.'"

RUSSIA: ANTI-MD CONCERNS

Issue-related commentary from 31 editorials; some editorials contained more than one comment.

ANTI-MD

Reformist Vremya-MN (12/22): "The most intriguing issue in U.S.-Russian relations is whether Bush Jr. will take up the relay which Reagan rejected in the dialogue with Gorbachev. The creation of an American anti-missile umbrella in violation of the 1972 ABM Treaty would amount to a castration of the Russian nuclear potential, thus removing the chief external obstacle to U.S. dominance in the world."

Reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (12/28): "The Chinese authorities keep repeating that they reserve the right to use military force, including nuclear weapons, if Taiwan declares independence, is occupied or continues to refuse to negotiate peaceful reunification with the PRC on Beijing's terms. The U.S. Republican administration added fuel to the fire confirming its adherence to the plans of the Democrats to deploy a national missile defense and theater ABM that would cover Taiwan."

Reformist Vremya MN (1/16): "Even though Bush tried to comfort the opponents (primarily Moscow and Beijing) about NMD, it is clear, observers say, that U.S. foreign policy has been moving from messiahship to self-isolation, with Washington adopting a tougher stand on national security matters."

Reformist weekly VEK (1/26): "We are in for very hard talks on the whole range of strategic arms. Doubtless, the Americans will try to augment their advantage.... Disregard for Russia's interests and trying to isolate it would have serious geopolitical consequences. Attempts at diktat would cause Russia, China and other countries to retaliate."

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2/1): "U.S. plans to deploy NMD may have serious consequences for arms control, unless backed by an agreement with Russia on amendments necessary to maintain the ABM Treaty.... Russia's main concern is that NMD deployment may become a prelude to building a much more powerful system that will upset the current strategic stability."

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2/2): "Europe is not happy...about contradictions on NMD between Russia and the U.S., and many leaders in the Old World--Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder--have on several occasions voiced their agreement with the Russian position that the ABM Treaty should be maintained.... While an arms race between Russia and the U.S. is still a hypothetical threat, it is already in full swing in Asia."

Official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (2/14) quoted First Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Army Valery Manilov: "As we deal with our American partners, we will use every possibility to explain Russia's principled stand, which is that the ABM Treaty is not subject to modernization. Any modernization...will castrate and destroy it as a system which ensures a balance between offensive and defensive weapons.... If the United States withdraws from the ABM Treaty and starts to deploy a missile defense system, it will not be our choice."

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2/16): "Strong accusations unheard-of probably since Reagan's time in the pre-Gorbachev era keep coming every day from top-ranking U.S. officials. It is as if the United States is really out to discredit Russia.... You get the weird feeling that Washington wants to go back to the era of confrontation and recriminations."

Neo-communist weekly Slovo (2/23): "The Bush administration has toughened its stand on Russia lately.... Its members have increasingly been speaking of a potential and even real 'threat' to the United States."

Centrist army Krasnaya Zvezda (3/2): "Washington's attempting to deter not only Russia but the countries that seek possession of weapons of mass destruction may torpedo the process of strategic arms control. The point is that, with their nuclear arsenal cut to 2,000-2,500 warheads, let alone the Russia-proposed ceiling of 1,500, the Americans...will simply be unable to hit all vital targets. Therefore, prior to accepting new nuclear arms cuts, Washington would have to review its Single Integrated Operation Plan (SIOP) plan, meaning that it would have to reduce considerably the nuclear complement of its drive for global hegemony. That it will do so is unlikely."

Reformist Noviye Izvestiya (3/6): "The U.S.' NMD, owing to extremely hard technical problems, is hardly a viable idea. Having an opponent act stupidly is not good enough. You must know how to use this. Russia's current rulers, it seems, have difficulty sensing stupid mistakes, their own and other people's."

CHINA

CHINA: MD TARGETS CHINA, SEEKS TO ENSURE U.S. HEGEMONY

Official Chinese media expressed adamant opposition to Bush administration plans for MD development and deployment. Pro-PRC papers in Hong Kong and Macao were also dogged in their criticism of MD. Even independent and center-left Hong Kong newspapers were skeptical, if not scornful, of U.S. deployment plans. Official outlets claimed that Washington's "true motive behind MD deployment" was not to protect itself from a missile threat emanating from 'rogue' states, but to disarm "those who might challenge American hegemony." Consequently, most writers contended that MD targeted China--sometimes alongside Russia--because Beijing stood between Washington and its goal of "absolute security." Secondary U.S. objectives for the program were cited as "advancing the military technology and the combat capability of the U.S." and guaranteeing American military supremacy in outer space. Editorials recited the full catalogue of objections to MD, from sparking an arms race to undermining arms control regimes, but the underlying critique was that it would negate the deterrent power of China, and secondarily, Russia.

CHINA: ANTI-MD CONCERNS

Issue-related commentary from 45 editorials; some editorials contained more than one comment.

ANTI-MD

Pro-PRC Macau Daily News (12/16): "Bush will try to...contain China to strengthen the U.S. position in the Asian Pacific area. The policy will be to withdraw from the 'anti-missile treaty,' set up the national missile defense system and theater missile defense system, support Taiwan with military force."

Pro-PRC Macau Daily News (12/23): "Everyone knows that NMD is a direct violation of the 'anti-missile' agreement. Calls to preserve this amounts to criticizing U.S. NMD."

Hong Kong's independent South China Morning Post (1/15): "There are serious doubts about whether any anti-missile system...can ever work. But there is no doubt at all that beginning construction would give the U.S. grave diplomatic problems worldwide.... Before it starts to build, the new Bush team needs to explain more persuasively why doing so is necessary."

Center-left Hong Kong Globe (1/30): "President Bush...announced that he would deploy NMD soon...and that NMD would not be aimed at China or Russia.... The United States is ready to develop TMD too [and] has tried to involve Japan and Taiwan in the plan. Beijing is strongly against this because this move is obviously aimed at China."

Pro-PRC Hong Kong Commercial Daily (2/7): "The international community generally believes that the anti-missile treaty is the cornerstone of international security and stability. If the U.S. breaks the pact, it will waste international arms control and disarmament efforts. It will also have a negative impact on the global and regional strategic balance and stability."

Hong Kong's center-left A Daily News (2/7): "The U.S. has spurred a new round of the arms race. This will force Russia and China to work more closely together or even to form an alliance.... The media in Beijing has revealed that China will develop and launch thirty satellites in the upcoming five years. It will also soon develop spaceships that can carry people into space. All these developments are making peaceful use of outer space. However, if necessary, they can be turned to military use."

Official, English-language China Daily (2/13): "Chinese military experts have warned that U.S. plans to deploy the NMD will lead to a new arms race, including one in outer-space.... 'Seeking absolute superiority with military means is sure to deteriorate regional security and damage the interests of all parties,' said Teng Jianqun, chief editor of the World Military Review. The political implication of the deployment are clear--to contain China and Russia. However, 'when any country is preparing a military confrontation with China in outer-space, we have to pay close attention to and prepare for what would happen'."

Official, English-language China Daily (2/22): "People can imagine, after the deployment of the MD, that the U.S. will not sit idly in this impregnable 'Fortress America.'... Its omnipresent 'national interests' and its zealous 'sense of mission' will drive this MD-shielded superpower to embark on a crusade to seek and strike at 'countries of concern' all around the world.'"

Huang Qing in the official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 2/23): "The excuse of dealing with the potential threats posed by some 'rogue states', which is used by the U.S. to justify its deployment of the missile defense system, is very flaccid."

Official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 2/23): "America's deployment of the missile defense system is intended to arm the U.S. with both offensive and defensive weapons in order to seek absolute security and to solidify its leading position in the world.... The motive behind the deployment is to put those who might challenge American hegemony in a passive position."

Official Science and Technology Daily (Keji Ribao, 3/2): "Apart from seeking hegemony in the world, America's deployment of NMD is aimed at advancing the military technology and the combat capability of the U.S., and preparing for controlling the space around it."

Official, English-language China Daily (3/7): "The U.S. military budget increase and Bush's development of NMD only attest to the American desire to police the world and bring other countries under its influence."

EAST ASIA

EAST ASIA: SUPPORT IN TAIPAI, TOKYO UNCOMMITTED, SEOUL CONFLICTED

Taiwan papers carried the only clearly pro-MD editorials. Taipai commentaries viewed the Bush administration commitment to both MD (specifically TMD) and the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act as "leverage to restrain and balance Beijing." Japanese media observers avoided outright support for or opposition to MD deployment, focusing instead on the importance of mutual consultation and maintaining a tight U.S.-Japan security partnership. None questioned that North Korea's missile program posed a legitimate threat, but they worried that MD deployment might not only bring Asian powers Russia and China into strategic alignment, but also unravel arms control gains. Many South Korean commentators found it "very worrisome" that the administration uses Pyongyang's missile program as a prime rationale for MD. They feared that "the distrust of North Korea expressed by key U.S. policymakers" would thwart North-South reconciliation. Other editorialists, however, insisted that the Seoul government acknowledge the paramount importance of the U.S. alliance by refraining from public criticism of American MD plans. Several writers advised that President Kim Dae Jung "had better maintain 'strategic ambiguity' for the time being."

PRO-MD

TAIWAN-- Liberal/pro-independence, English-language Taiwan News (12/18): "We...approve of Bush...developing an effective TMD System to ensure that the Taiwan Strait problem is resolved peacefully."

Centrist/pro-status quo China Times (12/19): "Should conflicts occur, the new administration wouldn't fear confrontation with Beijing.... NMD and the 'Taiwan Security Enhancement Act' will be emphasized and used as new leverage to restrain and balance Beijing."

UNCOMMITTED

JAPAN--Liberal Asahi (12/22): "Considering Mr. Bush's repeated support for early NMD deployment, we are concerned about his administration's relations with Russia and China over the issue.... His administration needs to lead the world through close dialogue and cooperation with other countries, without focusing only on U.S. national interests."

Top-circulation, centrist Yomiuri (1/25): "Deployment not only remains technologically problematic, but also has drawn European criticism as a move to 'rekindle' a nuclear arms race. Under these circumstances, there is no need for the United States to make a 'hasty' decision on NMD deployment. The Bush administration must consider carefully what adverse effect deployment would have on Russia and China."

Liberal Asahi (1/29): "The United States is opposed to what it views as Chinese and Russian obstruction of the planned NMD deployment, delaying 'cut-off' talks. Japan should take the initiative in reactivating the [Geneva] arms control talks, particularly in compiling a long-term arms control implementation plan."

AUSTRALIA--Leading Sydney Morning Herald (12/16): "Australia could face awkward decisions if Mr. Bush decides to go ahead with the proposed missile defense systems."

Government-funded ABC Radio National (2/5): "China...fears that a working missile defense system could give the United States an overwhelming advantage and breach existing ballistic missile agreements. China's sensitivity is even greater because of Beijing's fears that Taiwan could end up being protected by the American missile shield.... For Australia, which wants to stay friends with the Americans without offending China, it could provide a diplomatic dilemma."

SOUTH KOREA--Independent Hankyoreh Shinmun (12/20): "We can't afford to overlook the Bush administration's emphasis on 'power diplomacy' and NMD. Concerns are being raised that Republican hawks...might turn the ongoing thaw between the North and South back half a century into a Cold War framework."

Conservative Chosun Ilbo (3/1): "Korea, the so-called U.S. ally, has become the first Asian country to support Russia's anti-NMD position.... We cannot help but express our doubts whether such a view and attitude by the government is desirable in light of international relations or Korea-U.S. relations."

Independent Joong-Ang Ilbo (3/1): "As far as NMD is concerned, the [South Korean] government had better maintain 'strategic ambiguity' for the time being."

Conservative Chosun Ilbo (3/5): "It would be complete nonsense for the [South Korean] government to try to explain to the U.S. that, despite its agreement with Russia on the ABM treaty, it has never objected to the NMD program. We hope that...the government will not disgrace itself once again by insisting that the ABM and NMD issues are separate."

Independent Joong-Ang Ilbo (3/5): "With regard to the U.S. NMD program, our position is that, given inter-Korean relations and the objective of NMD, the government should maintain strategic ambiguity until any international framework takes shape."

ANTI-MD

AUSTRALIA--Leading Sydney Morning Herald (2/6): "The Bush administration's intention 'to develop and deploy a missile defense designed to defend our people against a limited ballistic missile attack' has put its strategic alliance with Europe under unnecessary strain.... The U.S. had established a position committed to the slow and often painful process of arms limitation and nuclear disarmament negotiations. Now, it seems, that's all to change."

MALAYSIA--Government-influenced, Chinese-language Sin Chew Jit Poh (1/13): "Defense Secretary-designate Rumsfeld has proclaimed that the U.S. must go ahead with NMD.

"The Bush administration says this is necessary to beef up national security, but it may backfire by pushing all its adversaries to unite to fight American hegemony.... Bush seems to not only want the world to see America's power but also force others to accept U.S. hegemony."

NEW ZEALAND--Leading, conservative Dominion (12/15): "Mr. Bush is determined to strengthen the U.S. NMD program, even if it means jettisoning the ABM Treaty. He opposes the CTBT. Any American retreat from those benchmarks would stir international misgiving."

SINGAPORE--Pro-government Straits Times (2/12): "Such a shield will violate the 1972 ABM Treaty, long acknowledged as the cornerstone of a series of U.S.-Russian nuclear-arms control agreements. It may trigger an arms race as Russia and China increase their arsenals to preserve their retaliatory capacities. And finally, in Asia itself, the deployment of TMD systems will set off a destabilizing arms race.

SOUTH KOREA--Independent Joong-Ang Ilbo (1/30): "We cannot agree to the U.S. NMD project because it will obviously pique the neighboring four powers and heighten military tensions in Northeast Asia. The government should try its utmost to bridge the gap between the North's new thinking and the U.S. NMD project before the U.S. government makes a conclusive decision and pressures us to support it."

Independent Hankyoreh Shinmun (2/28): "It would be very worrisome for the future of U.S.-North Korea relations if the distrust and suspicion of North Korea overtly expressed by key policy makers in the Bush Administration were related to U.S. intentions to build an NMD system. In that case, it would be hard to expect the U.S. to act as an honest broker on issues regarding the Korean Peninsula."

Government-owned Daehan Maeil (3/7): "It seems that the Bush administration does not want North Korea to be overly yielding until the NMD issue is resolved. Rather, its true intention might be that North Korea should remain a rogue state. However, North Korea is not as it was in 1998. It is now actively showing its willingness to make compromises with support from Russia and China."

VIETNAM--Mouthpiece of the Ho Chi Minh City's Communist Youth League Tuoi Tre (2/12): "NMD...disregards and violates the world's security interests.... Although it is a defense system, NMD will destroy the balance of weapons in the world, possibly igniting a new arms race.... The go-ahead for NMD will neutralize all progress obtained so far from the ABM Treaty."

SOUTH ASIA

SOUTH ASIA: 'GOOD-BYE CTBT, HELLO NMD'

Indian editorialists saw George W. Bush's election as freeing India from any U.S. pressure to accede to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or to curb its nuclear ambitions. A representative editorial contended that "New Delhi's pursuit of a nuclear arsenal is closer to Bush's preference for a go-it-alone nuclear policy." Writers viewed the administration's endorsements of MD and the 1999 Senate rejection of CTBT ratification as reflecting "tectonic shifts in U.S. nuclear doctrine." Editorials from India and Pakistan provided numerous examples of the kind of thinking and double-thinking that MD critics have predicted will spark global and regional arms races. The nationalist Hindustan Times, for example, thought that MD deployment will "prompt Russia and China to build systems to outwit missile defenses." It then asserted that "India not only needs to deter regional missile threats, but it also has to catch up with countermeasure technologies." Karachi's centrist, national News also noted that the Chinese response to MD would provide "an impetus for further proliferation" and stressed the importance of Indo-Pakistan nuclear risk reduction talks because, in the post-MD environment, "any efforts to keep nuclear restraint from going to the winds will have to be indigenous."

UNCOMMITTED

INDIA--Centrist Hindustan Times (12/15): "While it criticizes U.S. talk of missile defense, New Delhi's pursuit of a nuclear arsenal is closer to Bush's preference for a go-it-alone nuclear policy."

Centrist Hindu (12/18): "While emphasizing the increased importance of defense-related technologies, Bush has also called for radical, and even unilateral, cuts in the American arsenal. India will have to carefully assess the potential for tectonic shifts in the U.S. nuclear doctrine and adapt its own nuclear security and arms control positions."

Centrist Times of India (2/12): "The Americans profess that the missile defense is not intended to degrade the Chinese deterrent capability but only to provide a missile shield for the U.S. against states of concern.... This claim is prima facie incredible.... The U.S. may make it clear to China...that anti-missile defense development will continue unless China verifiably stops its proliferation of missile and nuclear technologies to other countries. The choice for the Chinese will be to risk the credibility of their own nuclear deterrent vis-a-vis the US or stop their proliferation."

Nationalist Hindustan Times (2/13): "The United States will seek to rapidly develop and deploy anti-nuclear missile defenses...prompting Russia and China to build...systems...to outwit missile defenses. India not only needs to deter regional missile threats, but it also has to catch up with countermeasure technologies. Indian security will be pressure both by U.S. missile defenses and China's response to them."

Centrist Hindu (2/28): "The underpinning of the NMD-TMD is a perceived opportunity, and therefore the need, to obtain an eventual U.S. military dominance of outer space. There is a substantial aerospace industry interest involved in the program. The small-scale threats from weak states are debating points to divert attention from the main purpose."

Centrist Hindu (3/2): "Russia...and China are explicitly excluded from the list of suspects against whom the NMD could be deployed.... The question is whether India...can qualify as a 'friend' under the protective wings of NMD."

PAKISTAN--Centrist, national News (1/25): "With Bush coming in, not only will the heat be taken off nonproliferation efforts, an impetus for further proliferation may be provided via NMD and the Chinese response. Any efforts to preserve doctrines from getting 'harder' or to keep nuclear restraint from going to the winds will have to be indigenous. Indo-Pakistan talks on nuclear risk reduction now need to focus on some technical aspects in order to arrive at prescriptive measures to be put forth to their governments."

**ADDITIONAL EDITORIAL COMMENTARY**

NON-NATO EUROPE

ANTI-MD

AUSTRIA--Third-largest Kleine Zeitung (2/5): "The fear of a new arms race is not unfounded: Even if Washington should manage to renegotiate its arms treaties with Moscow, China might expand its nuclear arsenal.... Japan and the nuclear powers India and Pakistan would follow."

BULGARIA--Socialist Party Duma (1/31): "The U.S. intention to create NMD and render meaningless the ABM Treaty is...a veiled threat to destabilize the very base of international...disarmament."

IRELAND--Moderately conservative Irish Times (2/5): "While NMD may serve American interests, an agreement between Moscow and Washington further reducing nuclear weapons would be in the greater interest of humankind."

MIDDLE EAST

PRO-MD

ISRAEL--Independent Jerusalem Post (1/30): "Israel should warmly embrace America's decision to end its own vulnerability and help the Europeans understand the costs of remaining locked into 30-year-old theories of deterrence that are wildly out of touch with today's realities.'

ANTI-MD

EGYPT--Pro-government Al Ahram (2/27): "Washington's claims that small countries possessing ballistic missiles...will threaten U.S. national security are refuted by well-known international incidents.... The U.S. should...refrain from threatening world peace and stability by taking unilateral decisions."

ISRAEL--Independent Ha'aretz (2/27): "The problem...lies in the fact that [MD] is based on a threat that doesn't really exist.... The new administration is leading the world onto a dangerous track, which could increase concerns about a nuclear conflagration."

LATIN AMERICA

ANTI-MD

BRAZIL--Independent Jornal do Brasil (1/30): "George Bush...is joined by a band of defense fanatics in favor of an anti-missile defense system."

MEXICO--Nationalist Milenio (1/29): "If the Chinese and Russians do not object to the plan, what should the rest of the world do? We should protest because the program would encourage a new and senseless arms race."

*NOTE: METHODOLOGY

This analysis is based on 353 editorials and op-ed pieces from overseas media--primarily newspapers and a few broadcast outlets--in 39 countries, between 12/14/00 and 3/7/01. U.S. embassies abroad surveyed major media, submitting material to INR/R's Media Reaction Branch. Nations without a U.S. embassy are not represented.

Regional Distribution of Source Material

editorials countries

NATO(EUR/CANADA) 171 16

RUSSIA 71 1

CHINA 45 1

EAST ASIA 33 9

SOUTH ASIA 11 2

NON-NATO EUR 16 6

MIDEAST 3 2

LATAM 3 2

Characterization of Media

This survey covers a broad cross-section of the world's media, with views from newspapers and broadcast media across the political spectrum--conservative, centrist and liberal--represented. Independent as well as government-run and owned media are included.

Classification of Editorials/Op-eds

Pro-MD: expressed support for MD. (In Russian media, pro-MD indicates acquiescence.)

Uncommitted: did not express a conclusive opinion on MD, pro or con.

Anti-MD: expressed opposition to MD.

##