people's daily 27 October 1999

Better a Cut Amount of "Spears" Than a Strengthening of "Shields"

News releases tell that Russia, Belorussia and China had jointly presented on October 21 a draft proposal to the UN Security Council demanding a strict honoring of the treaty for practicing an actual ban on developing any anti-missile defense system by the related signatories in 1972.

As is a view generally accepted by people, the draft proposal has been placed before the UN Security Council against such a situation: Since its signing in 1972, the treaty is now in the way to hinder the US from the effort to develop its NMD and TMD. According to the US, it is now high time to get the treaty revised and the hindrance has to be removed.

In light of the first article of the treaty signed by the concerned parties in 1972, neither Russia nor the US should be in a position to develop or set up an anti-missile defense system on their respective territories. What is more, all preparations to that end should be excluded. It goes without saying the treaty has become an obstacle placed in the way of the US to seek for an anti-missile defense system on its territory. For its part, the US tries all it can to work for a revision of the treaty. According to the US, Russia is to be helped in return to have a missile tracker system to be built by the US when the latter should be allowed to get the 1972 treaty revised.

Since ancient times, weaponry used by men fall into two categories, "spears" and "shields". By "spears" are meant lethal weapons used to mount attacks; "shields" are literally to mean weapons used on defense. According to the US, to develop NMD and TMD on its territory is to develop a type of "weaponry used on defense".

But "spears" and "shields" can not be understood by their liberal meaning. The two must be regarded as things in a pervading overlapping way. The alleged NMD of the US is absolutely not a system used to a pure defense purpose. It can be used otherwise to a purpose of launching attacks on the others from the US.

Firstly, when the US should have been in command of a sophisticated NMD it would place itself in a position both on the offensive and as a party to act the bully to launch missile attacks on other countries.

Secondly, sophisticated US "shields" will prompt efforts by other countries to overhaul their weaponry and to go in for a race of armament to bring about a deterioration of the situation of international insecurity.

To uphold international security involves a sensible mutual-activating process. When a party should unilaterally strengthen its security it will be in a position to pose threat to the security of other parties and there will arise naturally a race for developing armament. The US doings can in no way be regarded as a wise stratagem. This is because it upgrades the insecurity level of the world. Under the present-day circumstances, with sophisticated technologies developed at such a high level as today's, when the whole world should be squandered in complete insecurity, where can the US find its actual security?

It doesn't need to say the wise stratagem on the part of the US is not for a strengthening of its "shields" but a cut amount of its "spears" or a smaller arsenal to be produced or used. This is to say the concerned parties, particularly those of world military powers should cut the number of their lethal weaponry in a balanced way. First of all, their lethal weaponry should be cut to a comparatively low level when balanced restraint is exercised. Then, through a long period of efforts made, with a common view to be sought through consultation, a new just equal world political economic order will be created. This is the right road to peace, the right road to maintaining world security and the right road for mankind to self-protection.

Opinion 1999-10-27 Page6