The most important - and globally controversial - strategic issue since the end of the Cold War has been the US proposal to design and deploy a limited National Missile Defense (NMD) system. In essence, NMD would be a strategically, financially and technologically less demanding version of the 1980s“Star Wars” system. (The most highly recommended source on that system is: Frances FitzGerald,”Way Out There In the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars, and the End of the Cold War”(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). The”new”NMD would aim to defend the US from any attack by a small number of long-range missiles, presumably carrying weapons of mass destruction(WMD) but not multiple warheads, and launched by an irresponsible “rogue state”. US Intelligence had concluded(on request)that in several years North Korea, Iraq, and Iran could develop the CAPABILITY of reaching the US with a few such weapons; estimates of the LIKELIHOOD of such an attack were not requested. The system would involve tracking the missiles, distinguishing them from the inevitable decoys; and destroying them through collisions with defensive missiles. Defense and political debates focus on three issues:(1)the value of such a system;(2)its impact on others;(3)its feasibility. Value: Debate here focuses on the issue of whether(a perfectly-functioning)NMD is worth building: Would even rogue states commit almost certain suicide by launching missiles at the US rather than almost any other target? Would NMD make attack more or less likely? Would an inevitably unreliable NMD be worth the investment ($60b), when many other cheaper/tested actions might reach the same end(diplomacy; aid; pre-emptive attack)? Would a rogue state not try every other conceivable WMD-delivery option (ship/vehicle /briefcase /reservoir/wind)before/rather than firing missiles, whose success is very doubtful/expensive and origin so obvious? Impact: Debate here relates mainly to the system’s possible/evident effects on: the global balance/number of “capable” powers; progress toward global (nuclear/WMD)controls/disarmament; attitudes of US allies not equally defended; the likelihood of starting/ adding to an arms race, i.e. offsetting military actions by existing/ potential nuclear powers to overwhelm and/or render ineffective this defense. More specifically, the system would infringe the US-Russian Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, reduce/eliminate China’s small nuclear deterrent, raise questions about its real intent/targets(defense of Taiwan?), its(later)expansion(against Russia?). Technological: Here very serious questions have been raised by experts about the system’s feasibility, let alone its reliability. It is asked whether cheaper, already-advanced, and ABM-acceptable Theater Missile Defenses(TMD), and/or ”boost-phase” or laser-based systems might be preferable. More serious, a number of recognized experts have raised strong doubts that the system as planned could ever work.

In light of the above, the proposal has been opposed by many, domestically and internationally, by individuals, organizations, and states(particularly Russia and China but also NATO allies). Hence the issues/debates have very frequently been reported on by leading periodicals (as well as analysed in many essays). Even limiting myself to listing only the best, non-technical articles from the New York Times, The Economist, Associated Press and Reuters, the number is enormous. If I tried to summarize each, I would have time to do nothing else. Consequently, assuming you have read and/or already understand the basic issues as outlined above, listed below are the titles of such relevant articles in chronological order. Most titles make the general subject clear, but any ambiguity is reduced and the main thrust highlighted by the addition of key point(s). First, I suggest essays: Deutch/Brown/White,”[NMD]: Is There Another Way?”; Ivanov,”..Missile-Defense Mistake..”; Lewis/Gronlund/ Wright,”[NMD]: An Indefensible System”; O’Hanlon,“Star Wars Strikes Back”; Roberts/Manning/Montaperto, ”China: The Forgotten Nuclear Power”; Schell,”..Folly of Arms Control”; all op.cit. Among longer analyses, the best may be: Dean A. Wilkening,”Ballistic Missile Defense and Strategic Stability”Adelphi Papers, 334 (NewYork: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000). For an abstract, or to order a copy: www.iiss.org/pub/prap334.asp.

While virtually all the following summarized items were published in 2000, it was a very special year.

The Economist 31 Jul 1999:”The Missile Threat:Rockets Overhead”(17-9):-early report on recent missile/ anti-missile developments with global implications. Michael R. Gordon,”US Seeking to Renegotiate a Landmark Missile Treaty”in New York Times 16 Oct:-the proposed US-Russia deal: US aid in return for ABM changes/NMD. William Safire,“Dangerous Consequences”NYT 04 Nov:-US is conceding too much. Economist 29 Jan 2000"Missile Defences: Countdown”(33):-apparent US“progress”on NMD. Jane Perlez,”Europe Looks for Reassurance as US Pursues a Missile Shield”NYT 13 Feb:-considerable concern over lack of consultation. Reuters,”NATO And Russia Agree to Revive Ties”NYT 16 Feb:-NATO S-G visits Moscow to mend fences and “rebuild trust”. Perlez, ”Russian Aide Opens Door a Bit to US Bid for Missile Defense”NYT 19 Feb:-an unclear statement that proved misleading. Associated Press,”S Korea Checks Defection Report”NYT 19 Feb:-a DPRK missile expert was reported in Korean press to have defected to the US via China; NFI. Elizabeth Becker, ”Russians Challenge US Over Radar in Norway”NYT 22 Feb:-previous NMD-type use of new radar raises suspicions it is there to gather information about Russian missile launches. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 22 Feb:-more(technical) details about the radar in northern Norway. Becker, ”Experts Say Missile Defense System Could Be Fooled; Ask Delay”NYT 12 Apr:-MIT/UCS group queries the capacity of NMD to identify simple decoys/countermeasures. AP,”Russian Lawmakers Approve START II Treaty”NYT 14 Apr:-Putin starts improving his own image and bargaining position. Gordon,”Putin Wins Vote in Parliament on Treaty to Cut Nuclear Arms”NYT 15 Apr:-delayed ratification of START II is enabled by recent decrease in communists’ seats in Duma. AP,”START II May Spark Weapons Cuts”NYT 15 Apr:-Putin’s main aim is to arrange deep missile cuts through START III since Russia cannot afford to maintain even post-START II numbers. AP,”Russian Duma Ratifies Nuclear Test Ban Treaty”NYT 21 Apr:-a diplomatically valuable act, since US Senate had recently refused to ratify treaty. Economist 22 Apr,”Disarming Again; Arms Control is Proceeding Too Slowly, But the Present Approach is Still the Best”(16-8):-Editorial proposes trading deep weapons cuts in START III(as Putin wants/needs)for”modest ABM twiddles”(as needed for NMD). Becker/Eric Schmitt,”GOP Senators Tell Clinton They Oppose Him on ABM Treaty and Defense System”NYT 22 Apr:-25 powerful Republicans plus Bush say scrap the whole ABM anyway, and strengthen the NMD. Igor Ivanov,”A Challenge from Russia”NYT 24 Apr:-FM strongly supports ABM, urges US to match Russian ratifications, and proposes Russia-US-NATO jointly develop Theatre Missile Defense system to meet”rogue” state and other threats, leaving ABM untouched. Gordon,”In a New Era, US and Russia Bicker Over an Old Issue”NYT 25 Apr:-at issue is the value of the broad ABM(i.e.vulnerability) approach. Barbara Crossette, ”Albright, at the UN, Defends US on Arms Plan”NYT 25 Apr:-a strong defense was needed in UNGA since slow nuclear disarmament plus NMD produced”an almost solid wall of criticism of the US”. Crossette,”At UN, Russia Hardens Line on Changes to Missile Treaty”NYT 26 Apr:-Ivanov asks UN support for unchanged ABM since”US was putting three decades of arms agreements in jeopardy”. Becker,”Missile Defense May Have Price of $60 Billion”NYT 26 Apr:-Congressional Budget Office calculates this as cost of full NMD. Alison Mitchell, ”Bush Debates Foreign Policy With Russian”NYT 27 Apr:-”debate”with Ivanov sounded like an exchange of views. Perlez,”US Says Russians May Want a Deal on Missile Defense”NYT 27 Apr:-officials sensed”readiness by Moscow to explore all avenues of a possible resolution to the looming standoff”, but no significant shift. Steven Lee Myers/Perlez,”Documents Detail US Plan to Alter `72 Missile Treaty”NYT 28 Apr; NYT, 28 Apr“Proposal on ABM:‘Ready to Work With Russia’”:-texts explaining US position in detail as presented to Russia. AP,“US Wants Missile Treaty Changes”NYT 29 Apr:-description of US plans, and arguments re ABM. Becker,”Right’s Anti-ABM Weapon: A Senate Clause on Russia”NYT 29 Apr:-legal tactics that would limit Administration’s room to manoeuver on ABM deal. Myers,”Russians Get Briefing on US Defense Plan”NYT 29 Apr:-diplomatic tactics to try to persuade Ivanov that NMD could not threaten Russia. Economist 29 Apr,“Anti-Missile Defence: You Have Sword, I Need Shield”(28-9):-a summary of the complex issues involved, and the new dilemmas for both Russia and US. Reuters,”Five Powers Pledge to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons”NYT 01 May:-at UN NPT meeting, a long-term pledge. William J. Broad,”US-Russian Talks Revive Old Debates on Nuclear Warnings”NYT 01 May:-the”launch-on-warning”dangers, and whether they can be dealt with separately. Perlez,”US Missile Plan Could Hurt Security Ties, European Says”NYT 02 May:-expressions of concern by various European officials, as well as by EU(Solana). James Glanz,”Israeli-American Laser Passes a Missile Defense Test, US Says”NYT 04 May:-a short-range test, but the first case of laser use. Broad, ”Physicist Group Says Missile Defense Tests Fall`Far Short’”NYT 11 May;-a technical critique by NMD opponents. Erik Eckholm,”China Says US Missile Shield Could Force an Arms Buildup”NYT 11 May:-NMD deployment would make additional arms necessary, or else the(now small)Chinese deterrent would be neutralized. Schmitt,”Pentagon Feels Pressure to Cut Out More Warheads”NYT 11 May:-the NMD/START III relationship(see Economist 22 Apr). Perlez,”China Likely to Modernize Nuclear Arms, US Believes”NYT 12 May:-while regretting lack of consultation with Beijing, US official contends PRC missile buildup(maybe multi-warhead)unrelated to NMD. Broad,”Antimissile System’s Flaw Was Covered Up, Critic Says”NYT 18 May:-Theodore Postol, prominent/expert critic of NMD, claims first(“successful”) 1997 test homed in on decoy, and that system is inherently unable to distinguish decoys/ missiles. Myers,”New Delay for Test of US Ballistic Missile Defense System”NYT 19 May:-problems both technical(sensors/wiring) and political(major Russian/Chinese opposition/consultations; variety of allied and domestic concerns). Economist 20 May“Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: No Dash to the Dustbin”(58):-NPT, permanent and almost universal, has serious hitches with related commitments(test ban, fissile materials, warhead reduction). Crossette”5 Nuclear Powers Agree on Stronger Pledge to Scrap Arsenals”NYT 22 May:-first pledge to”unequivocal”elimination of nuclear arms. Judith Miller,”Russia Opens Doors to Lab That Created Deadly Germs”NYT 24 May:-well-timed gesture in NMD context. Christopher Marquis, ”Washington Loosens Restrictions on Sales of Weapons to Allies”NYT 24 May:-US motives: reduce allies’ technical lag; more trade options both ways; more standardization. Alison Mitchell,”Bush Says U.S. Should Reduce Nuclear Arms”NYT 24 May:-US arsenal to”lowest possible number consistent with our national security(unilaterally if safely)but more robust NMD(including in space),doing whatever is necessary to ABM. John M. Broder,”Bush Proposal on Arms: Breaking Cold War Mold”NYT 26 May:-reflects end to nuclear deterrence/MAD and replacement by defensive shield; imperfections of latter for time being reflected by its limited aims. Gordon/Myers,”Risk of Arms Race Seen in US Design of Missile Defense” NYT 27 May:-mainly China’s reaction to NMD; concludes Beijing(arming anyway)sees NMD as direct threat to its security/interests so must respond -with reactions by India/Pakistan. Katharine Q. Seelye,”Bush’s Statements on Missile Defense Criticized by Gore” NYT 28 May:-Bush’s proposals (indirectly)criticized as creating instability and thus undermining security. Unilateral rather than agreed weapons reductions alone do not guarantee stability; they must reduce the risk of confrontation. AP,“Clinton Says He’s Willing to Share Antimissile Technology” NYT 31 May:-en route Moscow, President anticipates sharing NMD with other”civilized nations”as ethically right. Gordon,”Putin Proposes Alternative to Clinton’s Missile Defense Plan”NYT 2 Jun:-conceding DPRK-type threat, suggests joint”boost-phase”theater defense system. Economist 03 Jun"Don’t Rush into Missile Defences” (Editorial:15-6);“A Shield in Space”(Essay:21-3):-excellent political/military/technical analysis: deterrence, ABM, arms race, allied solidarity. Recommendations:(1)take time to work things out, including the various threats and options;(2)bring Russians, Chinese, allies fully into the picture, planning and deals. Economist 03 Jun“Defence is Overtaking Trade on the Allies’ Agenda”(49):EU-US defense relations: does EU independence mean isolation? Michael Oreskes, ”Troubling the Waters of Nuclear Deterrence”NYT 04 Jun:-unlike deterrence, NMD assumes irrational enemies. Barry Schweid(AP), ”Analysis of US-Russia Missile Debate”NYT 04 Jun:-Putin believes in both rogue states and deterrence. AP“Text of Agreement Reached in Moscow”NYT 04 Jun:-Clinton-Putin”principles of strategic stability”only respect/minimize differences, yet the”emerging” WMD/missile threat”should be addressed and resolved through mutual cooperation and mutual respect”. Gordon,”Sense of Urgency for Clinton on Arms Issue”NYT 05 Jun:-though under political/time pressure for NMD/disarmament progress in Moscow, no progress in either. Reuters,“Russia Seen As Positive on Missile Defense Need” NYT 06 Jun:-NATO sees as positive Putin’s restatement of suggestion for joint boost-phase anti-missile system. Alessandra Stanley,”Putin Goes to Rome to Promote Russian Arms Control Alternative”NYT 06 Jun:-Putin’s statement and European travels are designed to show Russia and Europe, with common concerns about NMD, can be positive. Glanz,”Laser Built for Israel Shoots Down Missile in Successful Test”NYT 08 Jun:-the many plans for laser use include NMD. Broad,”Antimissile Testing Is Rigged to Hide a Flaw, Critics Say”NYT 09 Jun:-Postol, supported by other experts and Pentagon plans, argues NMD sensor cannot distinguish decoys, even though they have been made increasingly easy. AP“Russia Offers Defense Plan to NATO”NYT 09 Jun:-still vague proposal for joint”European” anti-missile defense is TMD intermediate range system(but no reference to boost-phase approach which would need location near launch anyway). Gordon,”Putin to Visit North Korea; US ABM Plan May Be Target”NYT 09 Jun:-could be to stress diplomacy over defense system and/or that DPRK is not”rogue” state. Reuters“US Cool to Russian Alternative Missile Defense”NYT 09 Jun:-range, while within some ABM limits, is too short to handle ICBMs unless system targets boost phase; but this“would take at least 10 years to develop. AP“China Criticizes US Arms Plan”NYT 09 Jun:-while NMD critique relates to ABM and expanding arms race into space, Beijing fears real US aim is defense of Taiwan. Economist 10 Jun”Russia and the United States: Best of Foes”(56-7):-clarifications and comments on Clinton-Putin summit. Gordon”Putin Seeks Allies in Quest to Fight US Missile Plan”NYT 11 Jun:-Russian trans-European diplomatic campaign. Gordon,”Russian Officials Flesh Out Alternative Antimissile Proposal”NYT 14 Jun:-”boost-phase ”interceptors near Korea; ”theatre” systems for Europe. AP“Russia: No Progress in ABM Talks”NYT 14 Jun:-Russian military deride US claim of DPRK threat. Schmitt/Myers, ”Clinton Lawyers Give a Go-Ahead to Missile Shield”NYT 15 Jun:-first NMD-related construction work judged not contrary to ABM treaty. Reuters“Putin Says Pan-Europe ABM System Possible”NYT 15 Jun:-proposes“non-strategic”Atlantic-Urals system. AP“US Intends to Remain in S Korea” NYT 15 Jun:-argues US forces are”stabilizing influence”in Asia. Myers/Schmitt ”Korea Accord Fails to Stall Missile Plan”NYT 18 Jun:-N-S summit stopped neither NMD nor DPRK missile activity, but divided US leaders more and helped NMD critics. Myers/Schmitt,”Clinton Seeks to Avoid Acting on Missile Defense System” NYT 21 Jun:-aim to emphasize only NMD feasibility is under test, so options are kept open. Reuters”Russia Wants Radar Role But Norway Against It”NYT 22 Jun:-US-built Arctic radar not part of NMD nor open to Russian technicians. Perlez,”North Korea’s Missile Pledge Paves the Way for New Talks”NYT 22 Jun:-DPRK not flight-testing, but still developing new Taepodong-2 missile. AP”Albright Urges China on Taiwan Talks”NYT 22 Jun:-US presses China/DPRK to cut missile technology exports but meets resistance/suspicion. Gordon/Myers,”Politics Mixes With Strategy in Plan for Antimissile System”NYT 23 Jun:-entire political-strategic NMD history; decision may be deferred. AP“Russia Rejects US Missile Assurance”NYT 23 Jun:-defense minister insists NMD is easily-expanded first strike follow-up. Eckholm,”40 US China Experts Urge Delay on Antimissile Plan”NYT 29 Jun:-feel early NMD decision might bring increased Chinese missile production. Gordon”Joint Exercise on Missiles Seen for US and Russia”NYT 29 Jun:-simulations of coordinated“theatre”defenses against short- and medium-range missiles in“boost phase”. Broad,”A Missile Defense With Limits: The ABC’s of the Clinton Plan”NYT 30 Jun:-very good non-technical explanation of NMD technological concepts/problems. Eckholm,”What America Calls a Defense China Calls an Offense”NYT 02 Jul:-Chinese see themselves real NMD aim(18-20 ICBMs/threat to Taiwan),so might increase/ improve(multi-warhead)ICBMs plus decoys. David E. Sanger/Schmitt,”Reports Say China Is Aiding Pakistan on Missile Project”NYT 2 Jul:-increased aid for long-range missiles(NW-capable). AP,”China Denies Aid Went to Missiles”NYT 05 Jul:-charge“totally unfounded”; PRC against south Asian NW buildup. Reuters,“Russia, China, Talk Tough on US Arms Plan”NYT 05 Jul:-at Central Asian summit, joint declaration on NMD; support ABM. Elaine Sciolino/Myers,”US Study Reopens Division Over Nuclear Missile Threat”NYT 05 Jul:-experts/agencies deeply split on:(1)likelihood of(vs capacity for)missile attack against US;(2)likeliest sources of threat(terrorists?); (3)likely carriers of WMD(ships?);(4)time frame;(5)impact of US deterrent. Broad,”Nobel Winners Urge Halt to Missile Plan”NYT 06 Jul:-claim NMD wasteful/dangerous;”system would offer little protection and...do grave harm”. Sciolino,”Critics Asking Clinton to Stop Advancing Missile Plan”NYT 07 Jul:-Postol: President was misled so need independent evaluation; Nobel Winners; 3 major science groups; Greenpeace. AP”US, China Open Arms Control Talks”NYT 07 Jul:-US concerns: DPRK and Pakistan; Chinese: US sales to Taiwan. Reuters,”Anti-Missile Test Looms Over China-US Arms Talks”NYT 07 Jul:-meeting straddles key NMD test; China also hits proposed US theatre system(TMD)for Asia. Sciolino ”Antimissile System Fails Over Pacific, Pentagon Reports”NYT 08 Jul:-kill vehicle didn’t separate from booster; decoy balloon didn’t inflate. Reuters,”China, US End Arms Control Talks As Test Fails”NYT 08 Jul:-little progress; US will not rule out TMD for Taiwan. Economist, 08 Jul”A China For Arms Control?”(20-1):-would gain predictability(NMD)if more PRC arms control talks with other nuclear powers (US). Sciolino,”Key Missile Parts Are Left Untested as Booster Fails”NYT09 Jul:-unexpected failure of standard component wasted $100m test. Reuters,”US Eyes `Constructive’ Talks on N Korean Missiles”NYT 10 Jul:-will address missile development, deployment, testing, export. AP”Russia Releases New Foreign Policy Doctrine” NYT 11 Jul:-trim interests abroad, stress UN/economics, pursue opposition to terrorism/NMD. AP”US Defense Secretary Visits China”NYT 11 Jul:-US aims: confirm continuing NMD development; urge less missile technology exports. Reuters,”China Greets Cohen with Anti-Missile Blast”NYT 11 Jul:-Chinese adamant; NMD determines PRC disarmament policy. AP,”China Assures US on Taiwan Attack”NYT 12 Jul:-PRC has no intention of using force against Taiwan; denies Taiwan Strait missile buildup. AP,”US, N Korea Missile Talks End”NYT 12 Jul:-US refuses DPRK demand for annual $1b if ends missile technology exports; stalemate. Reuters,”Putin Sees US Missile Concerns But No Threat Now”NYT 12 Jul:-plugs joint boost-phase TMD idea as strategically balanced and cheaper. AP,”US, S Korea To Discuss Missiles”NYT 13 Jul:-US proposes to let Seoul build missiles able to reach most of DPRK. Broad, “Engineer Charging Antimissile Fraud Is Snared in a Federal Clash”NYT 13 Jul:-scientific ally of NMD whistle-blower Postol in trouble over alleged security leak. AP,”North Korea Vows to Continue Missile Program”NYT 13 Jul:-needed for”self-defense”. Reuters,”Senate Rejects Move for Tougher Testing of Antimissile System”NYT 14 Jul:-close vote against proposal requiring realistic countermeasures in tests, and independent evaluation. Glanz,”Experts Play Down ABM Test Failure”NYT 15 Jul:-NMD test failures were low-tech break-downs, but even success would not constitute proof against real-world threat. Economist 15 Jul,”Missing the Tethered Chicken”(29):-test failure has less technical than political effect; argues for boost-phase intercept. Reuters,”Israel Denounces Iran Shahab Missile Test-Firing”NYT 15 Jul:-Shahab-3(range 808 m),based on DPRK technology plus Russian aid, parallels Iran’s approaching nuclear capability(also Russian aid). Reuters,”US Urges Putin to Push Pyongyang on Missile Program”NYT 17 Jul:-unprecedented visit is chance to encourage DPRK to”deal”with its missile program. Craig S. Smith,”Russia and China Unite in Criticism of US Antimissile Plan”NYT 19 Jul:-joint Putin-Jiang statement denounces NMD as seeking”unilateral military and security advantages”; Russia unwilling to pass China sensitive weapons technology and sells whole arms instead. Gordon,”North Korea Reported Open to Halting Missile Program”NYT 20 Jul:-Putin: Kim implied DPRK would give up missile testing, development, production; in return wanted not just launch services but rocket boosters to launch satellites from DPRK. Reuters,”G8 Lauds Constructive N Korea Stance, Wants More”NYT 21 Jul:-US ”interested”if launches are by other countries, and outside DPRK. Reuters,”Clinton Wants to Explore North Korea Missile Offer”NYT 21 Jul:-at next bilateral missile talks. AP,”N Korea Decries Anti-Missile System”NYT 22 Jul:-vicious criticism of Japan(sic)for backing NMD. Gordon,”North Korean Leader Reported to Be Planning Trip to Russia”NYT 25 Jul:-missile offer clarification: Kim satisfied if 2-3 DPRK satellites a year launched abroad. Christopher Marquis, ”Cohen Says Missile Defense System Requires Support of Allies”NYT 26 Jul:-NMD needs radar (Britain/ Greenland?), so allied support”top priority”; 2005 target in doubt, but Clinton’s successor can decide scope/ABM issue; Putin’s idea is not a substitute. Reuters,”Asian Talks Focus on Security As N Korea Joins” NYT 26 Jul:-DPRK FM presence at first ASEAN+3 (Japan, China, S Korea)FM meeting stressed regime’s wish/need to improve ties with area and rescue economy. AP,”N Korea Joins Asia Security Forum”NYT 27 Jul:-ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)inducted DPRK hoping to ease Asian tensions; topics: US national/theatre missile defense(Taiwan), China Sea, piracy, traffic in drugs/arms/people. AP,”Putin Urges a Start III Arms Pact” NYT 03 Aug:-promises to meet Start II; urges”speediest conclusion of Start III”. Myers,”Cohen Delays His Finding on Building Missile Radar”NYT 08 Aug:-”difficult issues” (unidentified)caused delay in key NMD advice to president; Pentagon reportedly split on costs, work schedule, new tests. Reuters,”CIA Says China Helped Pakistan Missile Program”NYT 09 Aug:-CIA 1999 proliferation report claims: increased Chinese, plus substantial Russian/DPRK, assistance for Pakistan nuclear missile program, plus much for Iran; China and Russia also helped Libya; China helped DPRK. AP,”Pakistan: No Missile Aid From China” NYT 10 Aug:-responding to above, FM denied getting advanced missile technology from China. Reuters, ”Russia to Cut Nuclear Missiles, Merge Forces - Source” NYT 10 Aug:-Russian SC advises cut Strategic Rocket Forces(from 3500 to 1500 warheads?)and merge them with air force; most emphasis put on submarine-based deterrent. Myers,”US Missile Plan Could Reportedly Provoke China”NYT 10 Aug:-intelligence estimate for Cohen briefing of Clinton: NMD could prompt China to increase ICBM warheads from 20 to 200 by 2015, and lead Russia to deploy multiple warheads on missiles. Reuters,”Lost US Nuclear Bomb to Affect Talks on Greenland” NYT 13 Aug:-NMD needs upgraded Thule radar but new evidence of bomb off coast from 1968 crash, plus locals against NMD role. AP”N Korea Said Ready To Open US Ties”NYT 13 Aug:-if taken off US list of terrorism-sponsors, but Kim tells S Koreans that DPRK sold missiles to Iran and Syria, and that he was not serious in telling Putin DPRK would drop missile program if helped with launches. Myers, ”Washington Split Deepens in Debate Over Missile Plan”NYT 30 Aug:-Pentagon and State badly divided over how far work on NMD could proceed before US is required to give notice it was violating ABM, and Clinton needs answer before approving any construction. Schmitt,”Pentagon Likely to Delay New Test for Missile Shield”NYT 01 Sep:-next NMD test probably delayed until Jan, so any decision to deploy is out of Clinton’s hands; at most he decides re initial development. AP,”Clinton Punts Defense Decision”NYT 01 Sep:-announcement: successor will decide on all/any NMD deployment(even building contracts); work continues on testing/development(new booster rocket); target date delay minimum 1 year. Reuters,”Relief in Europe at US Delay on Missile Shield”NYT 01 Sep:-Russia: showed elements of a constructive approach; hopes”balanced” approach will prevail. NATO S-G: prudent course of action. Germany: wise decision. France: wise and reasonable. Denmark (Greenland): welcome. Schmitt, ”President Decides to Put Off Work on Missile Shield”NYT 02 Sep:-threat real and growing but technology not ready; also should be part of a larger peace/security strategy. Next test: Jan 01. Perlez, ”Antimissile Defenses: Clinton Decides to Keep US Options Open”NYT 02 Sep:-points: US can pursue arms control, but must meet post-Cold War missile threat; re ABM, security depends on deterrence, diplomacy, defense. Article outlines debate. New York Times,”A Call for Realism and Prudence: Excerpts From President Clinton’s Speech”02 Sep:-NMD decision announced 01 Sep at Georgetown University. Broad,”Defense Came in Several Packages, All Flawed”NYT 02 Sep:-history of proposals for defense against ballistic missiles, going back to Eisenhower era. Patrick E. Tyler,”European Leaders Praise US Antimissile Decision”NYT 02 Sep :-ex-Ambassador Lukin: predictable, rational, temporary, based exclusively on domestic politics. NATO members: offers time for consultations. Marc Lacey,”Missile Defense Issue Lands in the Middle of the Gore-vs.-Bush Campaign”NYT 02 Sep:-decision and timing had election in mind, and Gore’s reactive statement left uncertainty whether he would complete NMD if elected(need and feasibility?). Bush/GOP platform both demand”robust” system and disparage ABM. Reuters,”China Applauds Clinton NMD Decision As`Rational’”NYT 02 Sep:-hoped this was a major step toward dropping the whole idea, and that US will carry out more international contacts and discussions. Myers,”Russian Resistance Key in Decision to Delay Missile Shield”NYT 03 Sep:-detailed report on debate within Clinton Administration that led to Georgetown speech. Glanz,”Other Systems Might Provide a US Missile Shield”NYT 4 Sep:-non-technical description of various Theater Missile Defense(TMD)systems now under development(THAAD, Patriot, two Navy systems, Airborne Laser)with advantages and disadvantages, and expected date operational. Economist 09 Sep,”Missile Defences: Someone Else’s Desk”(30-3):-going ahead would seem perverse and anti-ABM; delay opens many (more practical?)options. Sanger,”Clinton and China Leader Meet but With Little Gain”NYT 09 Sep:-no progress made in dissuading Jiang from exporting missile technology to Pakistan. Perlez,”South Korean Says North Agrees US Troops Should Stay”NYT 11 Sep:-President Kim Dae Jung: the most important outcome of Korean summit was agreement US troops must stay in South”to prevent a vacuum on the Korean peninsula that would be inviting to its neighbours”; the DPRK offer to curb missile program in return for launch assistance shows it wants normal relations with US. AP,”China Slams US on Missile Defense”NYT 13 Sep:-FM urges UN to stop US from deploying NMD, since”dangerous” proposal could be detrimental to world peace. James Brooke,”Greenlanders Wary of a New Role in US Defenses”NYT 18 Sep:-public opinion in both Greenland and Canada is skeptical, bordering on hostile to NMD; the main concern is ABM, but FM Axworthy emphasizes the inability of NMD to defend against much more likely forms of attack. Miller,”US Asks Putin Not to Sell Iran a Laser System”NYT 19 Sep:-gives history of US-Russian friction over aid for Iran’s nuclear power(weapons?) industry, but recent problem is planned sale of advanced laser isotope separation technology(which US had dropped as uneconomic). Miller,”Russia Sends Mixed Signals on Laser System Sale to Iran”NYT 20 Sep:-US claims Russia suspends sale of system, but Russian institute says it still plans sale. AP,”Russia Freezes Laser Deal With Iran”NYT 21 Sep:-Russian government statement: deliveries to Iran of laser technology ”suspended”. Myers,”Pentagon Says North Korea Is Still a Dangerous Military Threat”NYT 22 Sep:-report claims in the last year DPRK military continued to grow in both conventional and non-conventional forces, as well as in launch vehicles. Reuters,”Iran Says It Tested Missile”NYT 22 Sep:-claims successful test of mid-range Shahab-3 missile, ostensible space-launch vehicle to put communications satellite in orbit; second test in two months. AP,”Taiwan Will Get Missiles If Attacked”NYT 29 Sep:-advanced air-to-air missiles sold but sent to Taiwan from US only in event of threatened attack(pilots can train on them); anti-ship missiles etc sold/ released. China furious. New York Times? ”Elements of Proposed Missile Defense System Are Tested”NYT 29 Sep:-ICBM releases 20 objects in flight to test ability of prototype ground-based radar to distinguish decoys among them; appeared successful. Another ICBM tested “elements to be used” in next attempt to hit mock warhead, probably early next year. Reuters”Senior North Korean Official to Visit Washington” NYT 29 Sep:-DPRK’s number-two will hold talks with President/State Secretary, probably on N Korea’s nuclear/missile programs and DPRK inclusion in US list of”state sponsors of terrorism”. Sanger,”North Korean at White House, Continuing a Warming Trend”NYT 11 Oct:-Vice-Marshal Jo discussed predicted subjects with Clinton and left letter containing for further easing of tensions. Visit may mean powerful DPRK military now running negotiations. AP,”Korean Envoy Seeks U.S. Security”NYT 11 Oct:-Jo’s talks with US officials”productive”; he saw bright future for bilateral relations, but only if US”offers concrete assurances for [DPRK’s] security and territorial integrity” (likely sees no real chance of removing US forces from Korea soon). Re status, DPRK ”opposes all forms of terrorism”. Lacey,”Clinton Trip to North Korea Is Possible This Year” NYT 13 Oct:-a major product of Jo visit: tentative agreement Clinton visits DPRK as president. Joint statement: ”two sides stated that neither government would have hostile intent toward the other”;DPRK pledged not to launch long-range missiles of any kind while talks continued on[US]demands for a permanent freeze on missile tests”. Broder,”Despite Secret `95 Pact by Gore, Russian Arms Sales to Iran Go On”NYT 13 Oct:-long/ important account of Gore-PM Chernomyrdin Commission 1993-8. Produced: removal of NW from Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan; trade deals; re-employment of Russian weapons scientists; cooperation on corruption and money-laundering; joint space station. 1995 accord exempted Russia from US sanctions for selling conventional arms to Iran, in return for ending sales by 2000. Exemption may have emboldened Moscow to sell Iran missile and nuclear technology. Arms sales continue despite US protests. AP,”China Defends Military Buildup”NYT 16 Oct:-policy paper justifies increased defense budget on basis of tensions with Taiwan and bullying by major powers(US?). No reference to NMD, or to PLA missiles, but China must “enhance its capability to defend its sovereignty and security by military means”. AP”Russia Repeats Calls for Arms Cuts”NYT 19 Oct:-at combined arms control/NMD talks at high level in Moscow, Russians again called for START III cuts to 1,500 warheads each(below envisaged 2-2,500),but dependent on US not breaking ABM, and again rejected NMD. (START II calls for cuts to 3-3,500 warheads each, but officially has not yet taken effect.) AP,”China Prepares U.S. War Scenarios”NYT 22 Oct:-summary of current Chinese military perceptions/ plans. Views US as main opponent(over Taiwan), and though its forces not in same league, Chinese tactics/deployment/ weaponry have US”threat”in mind. Concerned by US NMD plans and ties with Taiwan, Chinese defense buildup and rhetoric both up. AP,”Iran To Test Chinese-Made Missiles”NYT 23 Oct:-Iran is reportedly testing modified version of Chinese-made anti-ship missile during naval manoeuvers; army testing C-802 Silkworm missiles. Iran has tried to increase range of Chinese and North Korean missiles, and has built and tested many, including Shahab-3 with range of 810 miles(i.e. Israel/US forces in Saudi Arabia). AP,”Albright Announces Progress in Peace Talks With North Korea”NYT 24 Oct:-US State Secretary and DPRK Chairman Kim moved closer toward easing concerns over missiles etc. Albright:”We made important progress and much work remains to be done”. Kim mentioned missile prospects positively, technical talks will follow visit, and Taepo Dong II(capable of reaching US)still not test-fired. Security issues, terrorism, human rights, tension reduction in peninsula also discussed. AP, “Cuba Muses About North Korea’s Power”NYT 24 Oct:-US’ approaches to DPRK, while shunning almost all relations with Cuba, duly noted in Havana, which admits the power of DPRK missiles - which even sparked NMD. Pyongyang is also one of the world’s most dangerous proliferators of weapons(missiles and technology to Iran, Pakistan, Syria), but seems willing to bargain missile-restraint for economic help. Cuba lacks leverage and faces power of exiles. AP,”Albright Urges Nuclear Plan Disclosure”NYT 25 Oct:-in briefing FMs of ROK and Japan, Albright claimed it is”absolutely essential” for DPRK to disclose details of its nuclear weapons capabilities if its relations with US to move forward. In fact she had stressed key role of CBMs/ transparency many times with Kim. Nuclear issue was raised as some experts believe DPRK may have stockpiled sufficient material for 1-2 weapons prior to freezing its program in 1994. Perlez,”Visit Revises Image of North Korean Leader”NYT 26 Oct:-prior to visit, US officials’ view of Kim Jong Il focused on his apparently erratic/threatening behaviour. DPRK nuclear and missile programs led them to believe he was determined to destabilize the region and possibly attack the US. Albright team found Kim reasonable, informed, and examining major economic change. Readiness to drop missile program/exports in return for detente with US reflected a need to ensure DPRK’s economic/his regime’s survival. Reuters,”China Urges U.S., North Korea on in Missile Talks”NYT 31 Oct:-Beijing, keen to remove justification for NMD, expressed hope for further progress in US-DPRK missile talks and that”both sides can handle this issue properly”. FM spokesman said China opposed WMD proliferation, hoped Korean peninsula would stabilize further, and that”parties concerned should clearly appraise”DPRK missile capability and intent. Howard W. French,”North Korea Is All Smiles, and Bewildered by It All”NYT 31 Oct:-recent DPRK foreign overtures/visits are part of a gradually accelerating transformation under way for at least a year. Motives are unclear: sheer economic distress? -push from China to remove one US excuse for NMD?-increasing but diversifying foreign aid? Top-level decision has clearly not been explained to rest of population, who obey but are confused by such a basic direction-change. AP,”Iran’s President Visits Japan”NYT 31 Oct:-during rare top-level visit, Japanese FM expressed concern to Iranian FM that Iran is developing missiles with technology from DPRK; the two countries’ ballistic missiles are very similar. Iranian contended that Iran is developing missiles on its own and does not need help from DPRK. Reuters, ”Russia Talks Up Military Cooperation with Europe”NYT 31 Oct:-Ivanov, Moscow Security Council head, said Russia would consider military cooperation if Europe forms a rapid reaction force aimed at defusing or preventing conflicts, hinting this might be used by Moscow as counterbalance to NATO. (He earlier agreed on Russian-EU talks to discuss contributing to EU’s common security/foreign policy.) In reiterating Moscow’s objection to amending ABM treaty to permit US NMD system, he stressed that the lower the agreed levels of nuclear weapons, the more destabilizing an NMD. AP,”U.S.,N. Korea Missile Talks Resume”NYT 01 Nov:-bilateral talks resumed on curbing DPRK missile program after”serious progress”at Albright-Kim discussions. Proposals: DPRK suspends missile program and other countries launch its satellites; DPRK curbs program in exchange for US economic aid. DPRK claims: missiles needed to launch scientific satellites; part of right to self-defense; US should pay $1b compensation if missile exports ended. Reuters,”United States-North Korea Missile Talks End Unresolved”NYT 03 Nov:-talks ended with”significant issues unresolved”,possibly since preceding DPRK-Japan talks to normalise relations had failed after”serious and heated ”exchanges. US side said chose to go slow, though positions on”full range of missile issues[were]further clarified”; areas of common ground“continued to expand”; talks were”detailed, constructive and very substantive”. Some felt deal had been possible since DPRK”desperate to become eligible”for Bank/Fund loans. Exchanging launches of DPRK satellites for”serious missile restraint”now under study by US. Reuters,”Russia Touts Billion Dollar Radar Deal in China”NYT 03 Nov:-Russian PM hopes to sell/lease China up to five Beriev A-50 early warning aircraft(not as good as US AWACS - or Phalcon which Israelis did not sell to China after strong US pressure). A-50 is used for reconnaissance, air support, early warning of missile attack. At $200m each, China would seek related upgrading of its radar system. Requested over 30 Sukhoi jet fighters($2b);maybe frigates, submarines, missiles. AP,”U.S.,China Generals Discuss Taiwan”NYT 03 Nov:-Shelton, Chair US Joint Chiefs of Staff, visiting China to improve militaries’ ties(both sides want), urged PRC-Taiwan end dispute peacefully. China claimed US advanced weaponry sales to Taiwan increased chances of conflict. Shelton urged China join US/others in joint search & rescue, peacekeeping, other operations. Reuters, ”N. Korea Committed to Missile Deal, Europeans Say”NYT 04 Nov:-after Pyongyang visit, EU reported DPRK is willing to reach deal with US on curbing missile exports, but needs compensation in order to feed its people: regards missiles as legitimate exports to pay for rice imports. DPRK also wants compensation for delay in project to build two light water nuclear reactors in return for giving up its nuclear research program. Reuters,”ANALYSIS - North Korea Diplomacy Sputters Over Missile Threat”NYT 06 Nov:-slow pace of DPRK “normalization” reflects a dilemma:”How to open up to the world while maintaining a hermetically sealed society”. Economy’s desperate need for charity, exposes to alien influence”a population programmed to view its leaders as demigods”and the donors as hostile. Recent official editorial:”The imperialists’ aid is a tool of aggression...a dangerous toxin which brings about poverty, famine and death, not prosperity”. Regime has only one card in its hand: possibility of long-range WMD-tipped missiles, but how can it be played when basically the DPRK is about regime survival. Tyler, ”Eyeing U.S. Missile Defense, Russia Wants Less Offense”NYT 15 Nov:-Kremlin has mounted a diplomatic offensive to persuade the new US president to accept quick, deep cuts in nuclear arsenals-which both candidates supported. In return, Russia”might”accept changes in ABM Treaty to accommodate an NMD system. Moscow’s real priority, however, is to cut strategic defense costs, and create a smaller, modernized, effective successor to its bloated and deteriorating conventional forces, better able to meet threats from”religious and ethnic extremists”. Reuters, ”Clinton, Putin Discuss Arms Control, Alleged Spy”NYT 15 Nov:-during APEC summit in Brunei, Clinton probed recent Moscow statement that solution to ABM/NMD impasse might be agreement - besides deep (to 1,500 warheads)cuts in nuclear capacity - to introduce”unchanging general indicator of strategic weapons which would include anti-missile defense means as well as means of nuclear attack...[T]o increase one of the components[a state]will have to cut the other”. Putin hinted this was trial balloon, was clearly willing to cut below 1,500 warheads but, despite positive noises, made no promise on Russian arms exports to Iran. AP,”U.S. China Discuss Missile Exports”NYT 16 Nov:-during APEC summit, Presidents Clinton and Jiang discussed several matters causing bilateral friction, including China’s missile exports. This exchange was“general in nature”and there was”some progress”, but expert talks had also been held recently. AP,”Clinton Discusses Missile Defense” NYT 19 Nov:-President said it is”quite possible”US and Russia will agree to deeper cuts in missiles/warheads, and that he would support NMD if it could reliably block weapons from striking US soil. He had deferred NMD decision to allow more negotiation, and since he could not”justify wrecking”ABM for uncertain technology. Reuters,”Russia Firm Against ABM Change But Ready to Talk”NYT 21 Nov:-after meeting with British PM Blair, Putin reiterated position”destruction”of ABM would cause serious world destabilization. While assuring dialogue would continue, Putin made no reference to the proposal for a balance between offensive and defensive ability. Perlez,”China to Stop Selling A-Arms Delivery Systems”NYT 22 Nov:- China has pledged to stop selling missile parts or equipment needed for missile production to states developing nuclear weapons. Beijing will adopt export-control list requiring licences to export”equipment, materials and technology that can be directly used in missiles, as well as missile-related dual-use items”. Remaining unclear are: Chinese penalties, implementation(PRC broke two such promises in past)and degree of compliance with Missile Technology Control Regime. In return, US will waive economic sanctions for China’s past sales(Iran, Pakistan). Also, many US companies(cellular phone networks to TV conglomerates)are waiting for satellites, and China is eager to offer low-cost services. AP,”U.S. Hails China on Missile Pledge”NYT 22 Nov:-officials say that while pledge only as good as China’s willingness to implement, it could help to slow down Iran’s ambitious weapons program. Further, new sanctions will be imposed on Iranian and Pakistani military and civilian groups for having received ballistic missile technology from China. Moreover, this is Beijing’s most explicit pledge to date, covers dual-use components, and follows a similar DPRK pledge. Broder,”Russia Ending Deal on Arms Negotiated by Gore”NYT 23 Nov:-Russia has informed US it intends to withdraw from 1995 agreement ending its sales of conventional weapons to Iran(see above: Broder, 13 Oct). “Final”sales included tanks, APCs, artillery shells, mines, diesel-powered sub and sophisticated torpedoes. Big new weapons contract is now probable, even if Russians claim breach of 1995 agreement results from US infringement of its confidentiality. Republicans complained US had not applied sanctions before. Perlez,”China Gave Up Little in U.S. Deal on Banning Sale of Missile Parts”NYT 25 Nov:-US officials see many reasons China agreed to missile export ban(22 Nov). First, missile-parts sales may be less lucrative than potential income from launching of US commercial satellites which deal now permits(INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY). Second, value of purchases by Pakistan had dropped off anyway as DPRK Nodong missiles became basis for Pakistani Ghauri missiles. Third, Pakistan’s import needs declined absolutely as domestic stocks/capacities built up. Fourth, Beijing fears contributing to India-Pakistan nuclear standoff - increasing security threat on its own borders. Fifth, China has not honoured earlier(less-specific)accords on weapons control, so may again. (FM made pledge, but powerful PLA runs China’s 100 missile-parts factories). Reuters,”Russia Backs European Plan for New Force” NYT 26 Nov:-Russia is ready for”constructive cooperation”with new EU rapid reaction force. (Aim is for EU by 2003 to create force of 60,000 ground troops from member armies to“deal with regional conflicts and humanitarian crises”(globally); for a good discussion of this force: Economist 25 Nov”Meet Your New European Army”(55-61) which inter alia deals with its relation to US and NATO). Ivanov stressed,”We consider it completely natural, the effort by Europe with their own forces to provide for their own security...The possibility of a Russian contribution [opens] good possibilities for our joint contribution to strengthening stability and security in Europe(sic)”. FM then highlighted areas where US-EU views diverge, particularly regarding ABM-threatening NMD system. RUSSIA’S DOMESTIC SITUATION AND PROBLEMS: Since Russia’s foreign relations and strategic priorities have clearly changed under Putin - but without any clear focus or predictability, it may be valuable to look at the unsteady but evolving political, economic and military base from which he is working. Three recent articles and an editorial in The Economist offer a wealth of facts and interpretation. In the 18 Nov issue:“Russia: Junk the Brass”(62-3) explains some basic changes taking place in the”bloated, top-heavy and weak”armed forces. In the 25 Nov issue: “`Democracy’ in Russia”(Edit.18)and”How Free is Free?”(major essay: 23-6)probe the present reality of democracy, its weaknesses, and its prospects; “The Russian Economy: Boom and Gloom”(97) questions the amount of stable progress behind the recently-improved indicators. AP,”North Korea Faults U.S. on Power Plants” NYT 26 Nov:-DPRK denounces US for its delay in building two nuclear power plants, claiming this will require a”corresponding measure”. The first reactor was to be built by 2003, but is now delayed several years. Although funding is main problem, DPRK sees US trying to“weaken[its]economic and military potential and watch for a chance to stifle[DPRK]by force of arms”. Reuters,”Russia, U.S. to Hold Expert Talks on Iran Arms Row”NYT 27 Nov 2000:-meeting will discuss Russian plan to break agreement barring sale of conventional arms to Iran(Broder 23 Nov), although Russia shows no sign of backing down. It needs the revenue, Iran wants to assemble Mig-29s and T72Cs, and agreement was legally non-binding. US sanctions are possible, particularly since Washington believes Tehran is working on WMDs. It has tested medium-range Shihab-3 missile, says it is building longer-range Shihab-4, and has an active nuclear weapons program. END OF ONE-YEAR SURVEY OF THE HOT ISSUE Henceforth major articles relating to missile-defense will be summarized more rarely but in more detail and with copies in all appropriate chapters under the CONTINUING MAJOR ISSUES portion. Associated Press “U.S. Says Missile - Defense System Limited”NYT 22 Jun 2006:-“US said [22 Jun] that a US missile-defense system under development has ‘limited operational capability’ to protect against weapons such as the long-range missile North Korea is said to be near firing. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley underscored US calls for North Korea to abandon any plans for testing the missile believed capable of reaching US soil (specialized item on WEAPONS: NUCLEAR: NORTH KOREA IN 2005-6 under RECENT DEVELOPMENTS). ‘We’re watching it very carefully and preparations are very far along’, Hadley said... In Washington, a top Pentagon official said that a missile launch would be ‘a provocation and a dangerous action’ that would lead US to impose ‘some cost’ on North Korea. [Tough UNSC resolution was later passed after a short flight by Taepodong-2 missile.] Hadley, who briefed reporters while traveling with President Bush in Europe[to G8 summit],.. spurned a suggestion by former Defense Secretary William Perry that US launch a pre-emptive strike against the North Korean missile... US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on missile defense systems during the past few decades. ‘We have a missile defense system... what we call a long-range missile defense system that is basically a research, development, training, test kind of system’, Hadley said. ‘It does... have some limited operational capability. And the purpose, of course, of a missile defense system is to defend... the territory of US from attack’”.AP“U.S. Military Intercepts Missile in Test”NYT 22 Jun 06:-“A Navy ship on [22 Jun] intercepted a medium-range missile warhead above the earth’s atmosphere off Hawaii in the latest test of the US missile defense program, the military said. Missile Defense Agency said test had been scheduled for months and was not prompted by indications that North Korea was planning to test launch a long-range missile. USS Shiloh detected a medium-range missile after it was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, then fired a Standard Missile-3 interceptor. Interceptor shot down the target warhead after it separated from its rocket booster, more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai, the agency said in a statement. The test marked the seventh time in eight attempts the military has successfully shot down a missile target with an interceptor fired from a ship. It also was the second successful attempt by a ship to shoot down a separating target. Medium- and long-range ballistic missiles typically have at least two stages, increasing the challenge for interceptors, which must distinguish between the body of the missile and the warhead... Japan agreed to jointly develop missile defense technology with US late last year, broadening an earlier bilateral research pact”. AP “Rumsfeld Cautions on Missile Shield”NYT 27 Aug 06:-“[US] Defense Secretary Donald H.Rumsfeld sounded a note of caution about expectations that interceptors poised in underground silos [in Fort Greely, Alaska] would work in the event of a missile attack by North Korea... Ten silos house single 54-foot-long missile interceptors. If ordered by [US] president,.. one or more of the rockets would blast into the sky and race at more than 18,000 mph to launch a small ‘kill vehicle’ at an enemy warhead as it soared through space. An 11th interceptor is to be installed. [Asked whether ready for use against a North Korean missile,] Rumsfeld said he would not be fully persuaded until the multibillion dollar defense system has undergone more complete and realistic testing. [He said] some elements of the missile defense system are yet to come on line, including some of the radars and other sensors used to track the target missile,.. but stressed that advisors... have told him they believe it will work as designed in the event of an actual missile attack. [On 31 Aug] an interceptor based at a second site [in California] is scheduled to be tested against a target missile launched into the Pacific from Alaska’s Kodiak Island. That will be the first full-up test of the latest version of the interceptor and its ‘kill vehicle’, a device attached to the nose of the interceptor. [T]he ‘kill vehicle’ is designed to use its own propulsion system and optical sensors to lock onto its target and, by ramming into it at high speed, obliterate the warhead and any payload it might carry. [This] test also will be first use of an early-warning radar... to provide the data required to put the interceptor on a proper path toward its target... A further test, now scheduled for Dec, will try for an intercept. At a news conference, Rumsfeld said that North Korea’s leaders showed, by their test-launch of multiple missiles on 04 Jul 06, a determination to ‘continue to improve their capability and to threaten and attempt to blackmail other people’. He said they also are a threat to spread missile technology to terrorists. ‘I think the real threat that North Korea poses in the immediate future is more one of proliferation than a danger to South Korea’, he said... Rumsfeld said US intelligence about the intentions of North Korean leaders is not very good, but he said it is clear that the overall condition of the North Korean military has deteriorated”; David S.Cloud “Rumsfeld Sees Some Progress in Missile Plan”NYT 27 Aug 06:-“Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said [in Fort Greely, Alaska] that while the fledging US ballistic missile defense system was becoming more capable, he wanted to see a successful full-scale test before declaring it able to shoot down a ballistic missile... Bush administration has taken the unusual step of deploying the system which is designed to shoot down a limited number of missiles before testing is completed and before all radars and sensors necessary to track incoming missiles are in place. Rumsfeld [said] system was aimed at protecting against attacks from North Korea and Iran, which he called ‘rogue states that are intent on developing long-range ballistic missiles’... The goal this week is to see if sensors in the so-called kill vehicle can recognize an incoming warhead, not to actually hit it... But... it employed a target that in its size and speed was representative of missiles that might be fired at US. In last two flight tests, the system halted the firing sequence before the interceptor missile left its silo... Even so, after the second failed test in Feb 05, the system was taken down until Dec 06. [A]s many as 40 are supposed to be installed by next year. The other interceptor site is... in California, where two interceptors are in silos... Bush administration is also looking at locations for an interceptor site in Europe that would protect US and parts of Europe from missiles launched from Mideast. [C]ould be in place in four years if Congress provides the money... Sergei Ivanov, defense minister of Russia, [also in Alaska] did not directly criticize US system, but called for ‘transparency’ by Bush administration, a term meant to convey Russia’s concern about any modifications to the system that could take its capabilities beyond stopping a small number of missiles”; David S.Cloud“Missile Defense System Intercepts Rocket in Test”NYT 01 Sep 06:- “In the first full-scale test of the ballistic missile defense system in more than a year, an interceptor rocket launched from California shot down a target fired from Alaska that officials said in some respects resembled a warhead from a North Korean rocket. Pentagon officials said that the successful interception...showed that the fledging system, put in place by the Bush administration before testing was complete, would have a good chance of stopping a ballistic missile fired at US in a limited attack... But critics said that the test lacked key elements of realism and that its main objective had been to allow the Missile Defense Agency to claim the program was back on track after the interceptors in the last two flight tests, in Dec 04 and Feb 05, failed to leave their silos”; AP“N.Korea Blasts U.S. Missile Defense Test”NYT 01 Sep 06:-“North Korea accused US of threatening war against the communist nation with its missile defense test, and vowed to strengthen its own self-defense to counter any US attack”; AP“Czech Minister Backs U.S. Defense Base”NYT 07 Sep 06:-“[Czech] Foreign Minister Alexandr Vondra voiced support for a US missile defense base in the region that would protect US and Europe from intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, Russia’s military chief of staff criticized US plans to build a missile defense site in eastern Europe, warning in an opinion piece published in the Polish daily Dziennik that it could spark a new arms race. The base would be the first US strategic missile defense site outside US territory... [J]ust where the system would be located has not yet been decided... ‘The installation of US national missile defense system could initiate a new spiral in the arms race, and divert colossal resources from solving a host of problems not just in Russia or US, but also in other countries’, Russian general said”; AP“Missile Test From Russian Sub Fails”NYT 07 Sep 06:-“A test of a new Russian intercontinental ballistic missile ended in failure when it fell into the sea shortly after its launch from a nuclear submarine, the Defense Ministry said. Nuclear submarine... launched the experimental Bulava missile from an underwater position in the White Sea toward a testing range on Kamchatka Peninsula, but it veered off its designated flight path and fell into the sea shortly after the launch, the ministry said. The military previously had conducted four successful test-launches of the Bulava, which... has a range of 5,000 miles and carries six individually targeted nuclear warheads... Officials touted the new Topol-M and Bulava missiles, saying that they would be capable of penetrating any prospective missile defense systems. [S]ome other submarine-based missiles had ended in failure in recent years”; Reuters“Poland Wants US Pact in Exchange for Missile Silos”NYT 13 Sep 06:-“Poland wants a bilateral pact and improved air defenses as part of any deal to become the first ballistic missile-defense hub outside of US, its defense minister said... US is seeking to put up to 10 interceptor missiles in underground silos in Poland or Czech Republic to shoot down long-range missiles that could be launched from Iran. Advanced... missile tracking could be located with interceptors or at another site. [P]ossible bilateral defense agreement with Poland depends on outcome of discussions on where to put missile interceptors in Europe... US has favored multilateral defense pacts in recent decades, though it maintains a few bilateral treaties, including with Japan and South Korea”;

Next item(drafted Oct 06),supported by varied Ottawans, is listed often as very broad issues are involved.

Christopher Spencer REASONS WHY ALL SOCIETIES ON EARTH MUST COOPERATE - IN TERMS OF BOTH THEIR WEALTH AND KNOWLEDGE - IN ORDER TO SURVIVE:-Brief paragraphs first identify some genuine and trans-species (but not simply idealistic) physical and emotional human traditions, confrontations, disasters, or prospects that raise globally-relevant threats. These are followed by a few relatively cheap and realistic, but world-wide and trans-human, policies. The challenges reflect the already serious - and often inter-related - concerns of everyone, everywhere: all human beings now face “global” threats in terms of: (a) mobile, unprecedented inter-human violence; (b) widespread, potentially global, mis-health; (c) dangers generated to the earth on which all survive.

(1) All the wealthier societies on the planet now possess grand and growing assets of both physical goods - far beyond essential human needs - and rapidly-expanding scientific/technical/economic knowledge - enough to create/improve their comfort and health. It now appears possible, and universally profitable in terms of generating the good trade and health of all, to share such quantities of global assets with all who lack them, so all groups could fully address painful and globally-destabilizing needs. Even if competition were the pure motivation of large advanced companies, they would develop globally.

(2) Yet throughout the history of human beings, and contrary to the philosophy of the world’s strongest religions, four social factors have been dominant among the whole species: human groups have been mainly small (families or villages); their members have been grossly ignorant about almost all other groups’ characteristics, strengths and problems; they have exhibited deep and general dislike and often fear towards all other groups; and, above all, have felt no sense of responsibility for them. Violence against, or at least selfishness towards, other groups has been chronic - but is suddenly not beneficial.

(3) Now, for the first time in human history, the entire planet is massively/increasingly interdependent, not simply in terms of ‘globalization’ trade, but also regarding enormous travels/transfers of humans, goods and bacteria between societies. We are also now living in unprecedented planetwide situations where basic global knowledge is both vast and expanding - often via TV/Internet/phones in even isolated villages. All human beings, however rich/poor, educated/formally ignorant, global travellers/physically fixed, are potentially aware of other groups with greater/other power or assets - and/or apparent harm or nonrelationship - in their own societies or another. Any group can feel independent/hurt/frustrated/ opinioned toward another, physically or emotionally. Nature/scale of interdependence: widely unknown.

(4) An unprecedented but expanding global fact is that ills, ranging from the mildly-harmful to the multi-fatal, can now easily be transferred via weapons, explosives, poisons, virus, serious misuse of nature. The deliberate, unknown or accidental transfer of critical action to virtually anywhere else on earth, by land, sea or air - could in future be, deliberately or otherwise, generated or passed by groups or individuals that may or may not wish to inflict some ‘pain’ on others. Victims of such action/accident can be in or from any society at all, and can hurt any type or groups of humans, animals, machines, transport, buildings, towns or key liquids/gases/foods/medicines/power-sources etc. The effects of deliberate or accidental “spreads” or organized action range from minor diseases to mass murders.

(5) Any group will ultimately be responsible for “using” any of a variety of existing or developable actions against/in any society on earth. Hence an essential way to reduce the world-wide threat - apart from easing sharp and dangerous ill-feelings - must involve help in reducing serious/perceived pain/poverty/ (potential)disease/global misuse. It would also involve obtaining - through cooperative intelligence/law among all regimes everywhere - advance information about relevant threats -since any/all societies may somehow be threatened. But the most defensive and selfishly-beneficial means of easing global threats is for the wealthier/more informed to provide the funds/goods/skills necessary to accelerate equity - by both offering and obtaining relevant knowledge. Richer societies would no longer live safely while ignoring any others’ agonies - nor even suffer from giving assistance. Isolation is no longer an option - anywhere - for any rich and/or traditional society. We must all think, at least minimally, as global citizens. Economist 25 Nov 06“North Korea: Edging Closer to the Table”(40-1):-official summary:“Talks in prospect but not end to its nuclear ambitions”. Highlights: “With a fresh round now thought imminent, cheerier mood among participants is palpable[, though] what will sustain optimism less clear... US shown some flexibility[:] agenda can include [North’s] frozen accounts [and] six-party meetings can provide cover for bilateral talks[, while] Bush hinted US would still consider a peace treaty marking formal end to Korean war, long a North Korean desire. A new package of incentives would offer aid and membership of regional trade clubs... In turn, North has dropped its insistence that international sanctions be lifted as precondition to any new talks. [M]ood may not last [as] US, Japan, even South, insist nuclear North is unacceptable, and... will not treat with it as if it were nuclear power. North, on other hand, will feel that as nation with nuclear deterrent, however feeble, it deserves respect... North may also try to play off differences among the other countries[ - although narrowing:] South last week supported UN resolution condemning North’s shocking record on human rights... North fumed that ‘treacherous move by South’s authorities to side with hostile outside forces gone crazy over their anti-[North Korean] campaigns creates new major obstacles in North-South relations’. This is tame stuff from a regime steeped in hysterical rhetoric”; closely-related item:“Japan’s Security: Hawks in a Dovecote” (41):-official summary:“A debate over the meaning of constitutional pacifism, and whether to drop it”. Highlights:“Ballistic/nuclear adventurism by Kim Jong Il has not fundamentally changed Japan’s calculations about its safety - the North Korean threat[, b]ut lent urgency to old arguments for a more muscular security policy. Japan’s new PM, Shinzo Abe, [has] reason to revisit many of the taboos that constrain Japan’s Self-Defence Forces [but] appears to dismiss... developing [Japanese] nuclear weapons... Japan maintains one of world’s most powerful and modern military forces. Yet its operations are still hobbled [by constitution:] Article 9 has long been interpreted as denying Japan the right to defend itself outside its own territory, or to come to the aid of others... North Korean missile threat highlights the contradictions. If North readying attack on its island neighbour, must Japan stand by and wait for the attack before responding? Idea that a pre-emptive strike might be legitimate was raised by Abe, though Japan gives no sign of wishing to acquire the offensive means. A less theoretical matter has to do with co-operation between Japan and US over ballistic-missile defence. [They] have worked closely to develop systems that send interceptor missiles to destroy incoming warheads, and [are speeding] their deployment... Yet question is what Japan may do to help its ally. Though a North Korean long-range missile headed for continental US would probably not pass over Japan, one headed for Hawaii might. US wants to know whether Japan would shoot down missiles overflying Japan: constitution [legal views] seem to forbid it... Possible proliferation of [North’s] weapons of mass destruction also exposes gap between Japan’s desires and self-imposed shackles... Has said will back up US patrols at sea, yet its navy may not come to US aid if attacked... Change to constitution... still long way off. [Meanwhile] Abe promises close look at quite what constitution forbids - hint of reinterpretations to come.[Regular bills] could take Japan [far] towards Abe goal: being ‘normal’”; [oldest missile-defense system depends on evasive/credible system of similar counter-missiles] Alan Cowell“Blair Urges Keeping Nuclear Arms Program Alive”NYT 04 Dec 06:-“Citing a potential nuclear threat from nations like North Korea and Iran, PM Tony Blair urged legislators to extend the life of Britain’s nuclear arms program with a new generation of submarines costing as much as $40b... Blair proposed a plan to replace four Vanguard nuclear-powered submarines, equipped with Trident D5 missiles... that he said were the nation’s only nuclear deterrent... Blair insisted Britain should not dispense with its nuclear capacity. ‘The risk of giving up something that has been one of the mainstays of our security since the war, and moreover doing so when the one certain thing about our world today is its uncertainty, is not a risk I feel we can responsibly take’, he said in Parliament... Blair said, ‘The new dimension is undoubtedly the desire by states, highly dubious in their intentions, like North Korea and Iran, to pursue nuclear weapons capacity... We know... global terrorism seeks chemical, biological and nuclear devices. It is not impossible to contemplate a rogue government help such an acquisition’”; AP“Blair Unveils Plan for Nuclear Missiles”NYT 04 Dec 06:-“PM Tony Blair launched plans for a new multibillion-dollar submarine-based nuclear missile defense system, warning lawmakers the future may hold perilous threats from rogue regimes and state-sponsored terrorists... Blair told House of Commons that despite the end of the Cold War, potential threats were posed by North Korea, Iran and others... Debates over a new warhead program are expected to stir up fierce divisions in his Labour party, once committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament”; William Yardley “A Missile Defense System Is Taking Shape in Alaska” NYT 04 Dec 06:-“Four years after President Bush ordered a limited missile defense system to be built and nearly a quarter century after Ronald Reagan first proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative, [Fort Greely, Alaska] sub-Arctic outpost,.. is where progress on the long-embattled missile system is perhaps most evident, military officials say. Eleven interceptor missiles are installed in underground silos [there]. This summer, when North Korea signaled that it planned to fire an intercontinental ballistic, Fort Greely, which has never fired a test missile, was put on alert status... Critics have noted that tests on some parts of the system have failed and a recent successful missile test - in California - lacked decoys and was unrealistic. Even as questions persist about capability, the missile defense program is pushing forward at a cost of at least $9b a year... Fort Greely is better situated to interrupt the likely flight path of a missile from Asia or the Mideast... [N]umber of interceptors installed at the base is expected to expand to as many as 38"; AP“Report: Japan, US to Hold Security Talks”NYT 11 Dec 06:-“Japan and US will meet 13 Jan 07 to bolster cooperation in missile defense and discuss ongoing realignment of US troops in Japan, a news report said... The two countries are in the midst of a sweeping reorganization of the 50,000 US soldiers based in Japan... Japan and US have also stepped up efforts to build a joint missile defense system following North Korea’s nuclear test in Oct 06"; AP“Putin Inspects Russia’s Latest Missiles”NYT 14 Dec 06:-“President Vladimir Putin inspected Russia’s top-of-the-line intercontinental ballistic missiles, hailing their ability to penetrate prospective missile defenses. Putin [visited] a unit of newly deployed Topol-M missiles mounted on mobile launchers. After watching the new missiles, Putin said their deployment was a ‘serious step forward in strengthening Russia’s defense capability... It has a stronger survivability, faster launch and an ability to penetrate any prospective missile defense’. [L]ater Putin described Topol-M as ‘21st century weapon’ and said that it would ensure a ‘long-term efficiency of Russia’s nuclear forces’... ‘For the near future, Topol-M will have no rivals in the world’, Strategic Missile Forces chief... said on state Rossiya TV... Topol-M’s chief designer... said earlier this year that the missile drops its engines at a significantly lower altitude than earlier designs, making it hard for an enemy early warning system to detect the launch. He added that his design also ensured that warheads and decoys closely resembled each other in flight, making it extremely difficult for a foe to select the real target from a multitude of false ones... Washington withdrew in 2002 from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to deploy a national missile defense shield - a move opposed by Russia, which described it as destabilizing and harmful for global security... It particularly criticized US plans to deploy its missile defense components in Eastern Europe, describing it as a hostile move”; AP“Report: Russia to Refit Nuclear Missiles”NYT 15 Dec 06:-“Russia will replace single nuclear warheads on some of its strategic missiles with multiple warheads, Russian news agencies reported, allowing Moscow to modernize its nuclear arsenal while building fewer new missiles - and spending less. In theory, the shift would also make it easier for Russian nuclear weapons to evade a US missile defense system. [E]xecutive director of Council for a Livable World in Washington said... deployment would not change the strategic balance between Russian and US nuclear arsenals... During the economic shocks of 1990s, Russia was slow to modernize its nuclear weapons systems... In 2002, Putin and President Bush signed a treaty obliging both sides to cut the number of strategic nuclear weapons by about two-thirds by 2012, down to between 1,700 and 2,200 missiles each. When treaty was signed, many analysts said the number of Russian nuclear weapons could fall far below number set by the treaty. However, the recent oil boom allowed the Kremlin to increase miltary spending and speed modernization”; Reuters“U.S. Wants More Anti - Missile Radar in Japan: Paper”NYT 25 Dec 06:-“US officials have proposed putting more anti-missile radar in Japan to help intercept weapons from North Korea headed for US soil, a newspaper reported. Quoting an unnamed US military source, Asahi Shimbun said radar would also be intended to better monitor and track ballistic missiles from the communist state heading toward US troops stationed in Japan and South Korea... US currently has anti-missile radar in northern Japan. But that radar failed to pick up missile tests by North Korea in Jul 06 because it had been monitoring missiles headed for US soil”; AP“U.S. Wants to Place More Radar in Japan”NYT 26 Dec 06:-“US wants to deploy additional high-powered radar in Japan amid regional tension over North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapons programs, newspaper reported. US military activated an X-Band radar outpost in Sep 06 in northern Japan, and has asked for permission to set up a second one in the country’s south to monitor the Taepodong-2 launch site in northeastern North Korea, Asahi newspaper said... The X-Band radar is powerful enough to identify baseball-size objects from thousands of miles away, and is designed to differentiate between decoys and real missile warheads”; AP“China to Continue Modernizing Military” NYT 29 Dec 06:-“China said it will strengthen its military to thwart any attempt by Taiwan to push for independence, but vowed that it was committed to the peaceful development of the world’s largest army. A report issued by the State Council, China’s Cabinet, also said the country’s defense policy will focus on protecting its borders and sea space, cracking down on terrorism and modernizing its weapons. ‘China will not engage in any arms race or pose a military threat to any other country’, the 91-page white paper said. ‘China is determined to remain a staunch force for global peace, security and stability’. The communist nation’s 2.3m-strong military is the world’s largest but has been criticized for its lack of transparency about its buildup. Its reported 2006 budget is $35b, but analysts believe the true figure, which doesn’t include weapons purchases and other key items, is several times higher... One of Beijing’s key short-term goals has been to take a firm stand against any independence efforts by Taiwan... It has hundreds of missiles pointed in its direction across the Taiwan Straits. China has also spent heavily to beef up its arsenal with submarines, jet fighters and other high-tech weapons. ‘The struggle to oppose and contain the separatist forces for Taiwan independence and their activities remains a hard one’, the report said. It indirectly criticized US for promising Beijing that it will adhere to the ‘one-China’ policy, ‘but it continues to sell advanced weapons to Taiwan, and has strengthened military ties with Taiwan’. Washington switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979 but remains Taiwan’s major foreign backer, and is committed by law to providing it weapons to defend itself against possible Chinese attack. [Report] highlighted what it said was the ‘growing complexities in the Asia-Pacific security environment’... Report said China ‘remains firmly committed to the policy of no first-use of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances’. All this is taking place with the backdrop of North Korea’s first nuclear test, the uncertainty surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions and continued turbulence in the Middle East, it said”; Economist 06 Jan 2007“China: Coming Over the Horizon”(34):-“China’s President Hu Jintao... appeared in military attire 27 Dec to declare that China had to build a powerful navy and ‘make sound preparations for military struggles’... Little detail,.. but tone of remarks, his insistence that China was maritime power, and prominence given by official media to the speech all seem to point to China’s determination to build a blue-water navy.,. not least in order to provide security for its rapidly growing imports of oil/other commodities shipped from Mideast/Africa. [W]hite paper outlining military posture [was] published after speech[, but] does little to cast light on China’s intentions. It does not mention that China is developing aircraft carrier,..nor...discuss any of China’s considerable purchases of advanced weaponry from Russia,.. includ[ing] destroyers/ submarines/sea-skimming anti-ship missiles/ fighter jets... Among ‘security challenges’...spelled out is Taiwan’s ‘radical policy’ of pursuing formal independence, which it says threatens stability across Asia-Pacific region. [D]espite... hundreds of missiles on coast facing Taiwan, China has muted its bellicosity. [Its 2004 paper] threatened to crush ‘resolutely and thoroughly’ any major move towards independence. That threat not repeated. Hu appears far more confident now... that Taiwan’s President Chen Shui-bian lacks the political strength/daring necessary to sever ...links with mainland. On 01 Jan, Chen spoke of ‘myth’ of one China and said only people of Taiwan had right to decide their future [-] but did not set out any plans. Hu [reacted] would ‘not compromise on Taiwan independence’ [but] also said would never give up efforts to reunify the country peacefully... Even Chen...has relaxed a little. [Also,] between China and US, last year has seen a continuing thaw in their military relationship... So why is Hu... so keen on a bigger navy? Prestige could well be part of it[, but] recent report by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences argued that, since China’s rapid economic growth... concentrated in coastal areas, now has long-range maritime interests. As result, country was in the process of changing from a continental land power into a sea power”; Economist 27 Jan 07“China’s Anti-Satellite Test: A New Arms Race in Space?”(Edit.10-11);“China and Space: Stormy Weather”(38-42):-Editorial’s formal summary: “There are better ways to manage China’s space rivalry with US”. Highlights:“If new arms race in space, China in it [after] belated admission that destroyed one of its own satellites...by slamming a ballistic missile into it over 800km up in space. China’s saying it will cede control of space to no one. Feat itself not particularly impressive[, but] shows China could now blast someone else‛s out of sky [see other item; and] reflects badly on China as terrestrial power. Yet... could be turned to advantage. Satellites as vulnerable as valuable. US and Russia stopped anti-satellite tests because both stood to lose; [plus: eyes-in-the skies helped] avoid awful mishap. Today used... widely for communications/terrestrial navigation/crop monitoring/much more... China has thumbed its nose at the many satellite-dependents. As practical matter, there are better ways of dealing with redundant satellites; China‛s...smithereens... will orbit like bullets in space for years/may damage other satellites/put space-farers at risk. China [might] find its ambitions set [itself] back someday[, but] evidently calculates all this worth it. [B]last really aimed at rival US: satellites not only add to US‛s already far superior conventional fighting power [but] also aid nascent [US] missile-defence plans [which] might help protect [Taiwan] from threat of 900 missiles now pointed from mainland. Meanwhile longer-range defences could blunt deterrent value of China‛s rockets... aimed at US itself. China has [long] blocked discussion of other issues at UN Conference on Disarmament because US refused to negotiate new treaty banning ‛weaponisation‛ of space; 67 Outer Space Treaty prohibits only placing of weapons of mass distruction. [US claims] no arms race in space[;] therefore no need for a new treaty. Both China/US being disingenuous... Yet US‛s secretive space plans worry even some of its friends, [and] China‛s anti-satellite test makes a race to weaponise space more likely... An arms race in space would leave everyone... worse off. Likewise, insisting on a treaty or nothing, with interminable debates over the legal definition of space weapon... won‛t stop the emerging space competition turning ugly. Better to try something more modest: code of responsible conduct between existing/emerging space powers. Such code proposed by Washington-based Stimson Centre, think-tank working with NG experts from China/Russia/Canada/France/Japan, would rule out interfering with other nations‛ space systems, including using lasers to harm satellites... and avoid activities that create long-lasting space debris. Would also provide advance notice of space manoeuvres that might get in others‛ way. US still more powerful in space; China shown what damage can do. Their competition won‛t end there. But there are surely better ways to manage it"; Economist 24 Feb 07"Missile Defence: Europe‛s Space Wars"(Edit.17);"Russia: The Hollowing Out of Politics"(62-3);"Missile-Defence Systems: Bombs Bursting in Air"(67-8):-Editorial‛s official summary:"Europe should not let Russia‛s threats deter it from deploying a defence against rogue states [and terrorists] with rockets". Highlights:"This week missile wars returned - on two fronts. [C]ommander of Russia‛s strategic forces warned Poland and Czech Republic that if went ahead with plans to allow rockets/radars of US anti-missile system to be installed on their territory, Russian forces would be ‛capable of having... installations as their targets‛... [P]resident Putin surely knows anti-missile radar Czechs receiving, and battery of anti-missile missiles that may end up in Poland, are not aimed at Russia. [See"Russia:..Politics" on Putin authority.]They are part of defensive shield NATO has concluded help defend US/European allies from a different threat altogether: growing danger of long-range missiles, even nuclear, from countries such as Iran and North Korea... Britain has also made a bid to become European base for them[ - see":Bombs Bursting..." - since] this is already round two of the missile-defence debate[, as one radar in Britain is] a working component of US still developing anti-missile plans. [W]hen George Bush insisted - and Russia accepted - their long-standing Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty [was] scrapped. [This] left the Russians free to look more realistically to their own defences[, and] US and Russia, no longer enemies, quickly agreed to far deeper cuts in the numbers of strategic warheads.[P]utting ten interceptors... anywhere in Europe will do nothing to blunt Russia‛s vast nuclear deterrent... Indeed, it would reduce tension if US responded to Russia‛s request to negotiate further arms-control treaties... Other governments accept that their security is genuinely at risk from...more limited, but less predictable, threats[, and] convinced... limited defences can bolster security in Europe too. Yet, keeping in mind how limited a role[, at best] the extra defences can offer a little extra insurance in a crisis... So best way of avoiding getting to crisis-point is still to uphold and strengthen the rules against nuclear proliferation"; Economist 05 May 07"Japan's Foreign Policy: Abe Blows Japan's Trumpet, Cautiously"(53-4):-official sum:"Shinzo Abe wantsmore assertive foreign policy, but Japan's energy dependence is forcing it to be more pragmatic". Highlights:"[PM Abe wants] to emphasize Japan as a staunch democratic partner on NATO's eastern flank [and is] pushing once-passive Japan to pursue its own, more muscular course [as] it must compete with rising China and newly confident Russia for resources/power/prestige. [Yet its] army's WWII role in forcing women into military brothels [recently generated h]owls of international protest [and] forced PM into a sort-of apology[: see "Japan's Wartime History: Uncomfortable Truths"(54). Wshdc] approves Abe's fence-mending with neighbours... antagonised by past PM's provocative visits to Tokyo war shrine[, particularly since] US needs Chinese cooperation/leadership in dealing with North Korea [and to become]a 'responsible stakeholder' of the international system. Abe also welcomed for insisting that Japan should play... energetic role in [its US] alliance... With North Korea's missiles, US commitment to defend Japan against conventional and nuclear threats,.. reaffirming Japan protected by US nuclear umbrella, and deployment by Japan of two US-made anti-ballistic missile systems. Japan is keen to play a greater part in its own defence, [but] hampered by constitution. As things stand, Japan may not shoot down a North Korean missile headed for US, or come to aid of US ship... Collective self-defence underpins Abe's broader ambition [-] bigger role in international security[, and he has] proposed rewriting [constitution, perhaps pacifist clause]. Japan's great game is dressed up in values of humanitarianism/democracy/rule of law. Seeks closer ties with India.;. security alliance with Australia. FM speaks of 'arc of freedom and prosperity' from Japan through India/Mideast to Europe; China/Russia see as bid to contain them... Japan's [pragmatic] attempts to secure long-term oil supplies have gone awry [in Iran/Sakhalin/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait, but have partly succeeded in new deals with Saudi Arabia/Abu Dhabi]. Abe did propose a more active, 'multi-layered' relationship with [Mideast,] offering Japan as an honest broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict. His mixture of idealism and pragmatism... seems to be doing him some good"; Economist 19 May 07"Russia and the West: No Divide, No Rule"(Edit.12-3):-official sum:"A troubling new pipeline deal is a symbol of the West's inability to cope with Russia"; "Russia and the West: The Big Chill"(55-6):-official sum:"US/Europe confront new freeze in their relationship with Russia". Highlights of Editorial:"[M]ood has not been so icy since Soviet days. Russia says feels encircled by NATO expansion and proposed US missile defences, patronised on human rights and assailed by double standards. West finds Russia's pushy foreign policy, increasingly authoritarian manner and growing grip on its energy supplies alarming... [W]orst words have come from one side only[:] Putin seemed to liken US to Nazi... Idea Russia tricked/humiliated by mighty/well-organised Western camp led by power-hungry US is preposterous. Truth is Russia... currently outmanoeuvring a divided/indecisive West on almost every front - especially on energy. Putin [threatened] to exacerbate Europe's energy insecurity... Idea: hook up Europe to [Central Asian] gas reserves with new pipeline under Caspian Sea... Russia hardly blamed for maximising economic benefits of its energy riches/geography[, b]ut not mean Europe simply acquiesce... It should liberalise own energy industries, pay for better gas storage, build more interconnecting pipes/power lines, invest more in liquefied natural gas terminals... Most important, West must resist Russia's attempts to pick/choose among its customers... Centrepiece Russian policy is to strike bilateral deals... [Its] combination of ruthlessness, ambition and wealth is unique and scary. But it should not intimidat[e;] a bad deal with Kremlin is worse than no deal at all... Europe's dependence on Russia for gas/oil sure to continue, but need not be harmful... Way to bring more equality... is for Europe to stand united against Russian attempts to divide it". A key sentence from "...Big Chill":-"But the main reason for the rift is Russia's behaviour abroad and at home: its arms sales to Iran and Syria, its links with Myanmar, its political use of energy, its harassment of the opposition and NGOs, and its use of law as a repressive tool"; Economist 30 Jun 07"United States Power: Still No.1"(Edit.11-2); "Briefing: US Power: The Hobbled Hegemon" (29-32):-Editorial's official sum:"Wounded, tetchy and less effective than it should be, US is still the power that counts". Briefing's official sum:"Its troubles in Iraq have much weakened it; but US is likely to remain the dominant superpower". Inevitably very selective highlights from the substantial/complex Editorial: "[F]or a growing [US] number, superpower's inability to impose its will on [Iraq] is symptomatic of a deeper malaise... Nearly six years after 11 Sep 01, nervousness about state of US's 'hard power' is growing [refs. made to Briefing, then to the huge US army weight of Iraq and Afghanistan]. Other demons are jangling US nerves [China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Europe, Arabs, Chavez]. Nor is it just a matter of geopolitics [Wall Street, borders, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, climate change, Palestinians]. A sense of waning power is not just bad for US self-esteem. It is already having dangerous consequences ['China-bashing', isolationism]. Outside US, consequences could be even graver [Islamic revolutionaries, Putin, Western alliance]. Yet US being underestimated. Friends and enemies have mistaken short-term failure of Bush admin for deeper weakness. Neither US hard nor soft power fading. Rather, not being used as well as could be. The opportunity is greater than the threat. [But] while [US] talk was loud, the stick was spindly. [I]t is hard to imagine any future US admins making such [Bush regime] howlers when it comes to regime change. Yet in one way Bush is unfairly maligned... US did not enjoy untrammelled influence abroad before he arrived [Vietnam, Iran, North Korea, France]. [Superpower's relative]strength lies as much in what it can prevent... as in what it can achieve. Even today, US's 'negative power' is considerable [Iran, North Korea, global warming, Arab-Israeli peace] - US is quite simply indispensable [since] still has the most hard power... Better diplomacy would enhance its power [- and] al-Qaeda is still small beer. [W]in the battle for hearts and minds and you do not need as much hard power to get your way. [This applies to China. US is] an undervalued market leader, in need of new management... More than any rival, US corrects itself... Bush has already rediscovered some of the charms of multilateralism; he is talking about climate change[; and] a Mideast peace initiative is possible. [E]lection offers a chance for renewal[, and US] will bounce back stronger again"; Economist 07 Jul 07"North Korea: Pyongyangology"(44):-highlights:"What does the world really know about the regime of Kim Jong Il, which appears ready to yield to pressure/bribes to close down reactor that has provided enough material for handful of nuclear devices? Answer[:] much less than known unknowns. Kim runs vile regime with 20m victims of backwardness/ malnutrition/political repression. [S]ince mid-90s, unique brand of Stalinism has entered process of slow disintegration [and] famine killed 10%. [Now] foreigners in Pyongyang report change in attitudes[:] people defy [authority]/break petty rules/breaking seal on their radios that keeps them tuned only to state frequency/readier to chat to foreigners/signs of petty capitalism everywhere. Crime on the rise too, and mafia-type protection probably follows [- even] highway banditry. [Analysts] suggest regime... now feels more sure of itself[, having] recentralised distribution of food/other essentials, so all rewards from nuclear diplomacy easily used to reinforce command economy/buy loyalty. Recent crackdown along border with China [to catch those] crossing illegally[:] five years in prison camp [where prisoners] 200,000 - with .5m-1m having died there. Elite... riven by bickering/problems filling government posts/army [advisers' influence revived. Speculation about Kim's health: 66 and once heavy smoker/drinker]. Analysts.. predict a collective leadership after Kim's death, and regime's indefinite continuation. But an orderly succession not taken for granted. If regime suddenly collapsed, one cast-iron certainty is that countries that would have to deal with mess - South, US and China - wholly ill-prepared"; Economist 04 Aug 07"Briefing: China's Military Might: The Long March To Be a Superpower" (21-3):-official sum:"People's Liberation Army is investing heavily to give China military muscle to match its economic power. But can it begin to rival US?" Following are broadest points only. "PLA [t]oday is vying to become one of world's most capable forces. [It] has little use to confront US head-on, but plenty to defer it from protecting Taiwan... China has achieved a 'remarkable leap' in modernisation of forces needed to overwhelm Taiwan and deter or confront any US intervention... Pentagon said...China's ability to project power over long distances remained limited[, but it has] 'greatest potential to compete militarily' with US... China knows it has a lot of catching up to do. [Its] emphasis has shifted from ground troops to the navy and air force, which would spearhead any attack on Taiwan... China [has] handful of strategic missiles capable of hitting mainland US[, but its] launch preparations would take so long that US would have plenty of time to knock them out. China has been working hard to remedy this... PLA by far most secretive of world's big armies [and] China is even coyer about its war-fighting capabilities than about its weaponry... China is making some progress in its efforts to wean itself off dependence on the Russians... Pentagon trying to keep channels open to the Chinese... China has won much praise in West for its increasing involvement in UN peacekeeping operations... This year [PLA] budget increased by nearly 18%[, b]ut this appears not to include arms imports, spending on strategic missile forces and R&D... China is struggling hard to make its army more professional: keeping servicemen for longer and attracting better-educated recruits... Party still sees army as a bulwark against the kind of upheaval that has toppled communist regimes elsewhere... PLA knows its weaknesses [and] has few illusions China can compete head-on with US militarily... Pentagon official said China had developed a 'very sophisticated' ability to attack US computer/internet systems... Two sides now talking about setting up a military hotline". Partially related item:"US, India and the China Bogey: A Price Too High"(Edit.11-2):-"[T]he rise of China is rarely mentioned as factor in US nuclear exception for India. But it is perhaps the fundamental impulse behind it... No threat from China is either so great or so pressing... It remains decades away from being able to mount a credible military challenge to US pre-eminence. Moreover,.. China's priorities are internal. [Hence] no justification for the damage US nuclear concessions to India will do". Two other items amplify Chinese basic economic issues - which also must have military relevance: "Business in China: Dirty Dealing"(55):-"Despite a clampdown, corruption remains a formidable problem";"China's Economy: Be Careful What You Wish For"(64):-"Main reason for upturn in China's export prices is not rampant domestic inflation, but rise in yuan"; The Economist 25 Aug 07"Nuclear Safeguards: Mission Impossible"(54-6):-official sum: "Troubling flaws in the world's nuclear safeguards". Highlights:"[M]ore governments... investing in nuclear powers[, and] some materials/technologies used to generate electricity can... be abused for bomb-making. With more nuclear material being processed/reprocessed,.. the possibilities for theft or diversion can only grow. A crude nuclear device/dirty bomb...is everyone's nightmare. Scale of the potential problem is getting clearer: 31 countries already operate large nuclear-power reactors, and some of those will be adding more. Since 2005 at least 15 more governments have said they want one too. [Many] of these... are in Mideast[;] for some Muslim states, spur to proliferate might be Israel, for others Iran... Not all 'civilian' nuclear plans will come to fruition, but some will. Meanwhile a detailed 2-year study by Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre(NPEC)[Wshdc] has uncovered troubling flaws in the internationally approved verification and monitoring procedures for safeguarding nuclear materials against diversion or theft. [New NPEC report argues] UN nuclear inspectors from IAEA have too little money for job [and] yardsticks by which IAEA measures its own safeguarding success are woefully out of date. The money problem is easier to remedy. [N]uclear material... under inspection has increased far faster than the funds[, and] IAEA DG, Mohamed ElBaradei, has long complained his regular budget does not even cover all costs: it has to be topped up... US and Russia agree now that IAEA needs more cash... One improvement... would be install more real-time remote-monitoring cameras so inspectors can check more reliably that materials/equipment not being diverted to covert use... IAEA assesses these things using a measure of militarily 'significant quantity': the amount of highly enriched uranium(25kg) or separated plutonium(8kg) it would take to make a weapon. But... NPEC finds (them) too high,.. [considering current] type of weapon/yield required... All the more important, then, to keep a close eye on plants that produce quantities of such dangerous materials... But NPEC's conclusion is that proper verification here impossible; at best, IAEA can improve its monitoring techniques... ElBaradei and others have suggested multinational fuel centres as a way to avoid dangerous technologies being abused by individual governments. But safeguarding those would be no easier. Better that such fuel-making technology not spread around at all". Same Economist issue also contains 3 directly-related items (+official sums):"The [US]-India Nuclear Deal: Worse Will Come"(Edit.12):-"Unless others stand up for the anti-nuclear rules"; "Australia's Uranium Mines: The Indian Exception"(40):-"The deputy sheriff [pro-US PM] does his bit for US nuclear deal with India"; "India, US and Japan: Democratic Baggage"(40-1):-"[Indian] Communists see red over India's nuclear deal with US";

Economist 08 Sep 07"Taiwan: The Trouble With Democracy"(45):-official sum:"US blunders into Taiwan's electoral politics". Highlights: "Taiwan's two big parties... are at present united in condemning recent US pronouncements. [A] referendum planned to coincide with presidential elections in Taiwan in Mar [08] would seek support for a doomed attempt to join UN as 'Taiwan' rather than 'Republic of China'. China - and, it seems, US - regard referendum as thin edge of wedge [leading towards] declaration of independence from China. [R]ecent statement from [US claimed] Taiwan could not join UN because 'not at this point a state in international community'. [I]ssue seems to have been ignored [at US-China meeting, but US is a vital ally [so] latest debate has brought relations to a low ebb. Taiwan president Chen has aggressively, if unavailingly, pursued membership in international organizations... as necessary to break out of diplomatic isolation... Referendum is in part designed to win votes for Chen's Democratic Progressive Party [whose] roots are in independence movement. [M]ain opposition, Kuomintang, favours eventual unification with China -not popular with voters [and] has proposed 'pragmatic/flexible strategies' to rejoin international bodies. China never renounced its right to 'reunify' Taiwan by force [- but] this year has largely remained calm. It was US opposition to referendum that brought debate to life in Taiwan[, where] public showed little interest until [Aug, when US official] said referendum was mistake and that US considered it a step towards declaration of independence... China has learned such criticism of moves towards independence can backfire[, while US] convinced DPP ... it has nothing to lose by pursuing a campaign that is bound to harm ties. Even so, referendum may not give it the backing it wants [- and the vote itself may not even succeed.]" Economist 20 Oct 07"Russia's Foreign Policy: Last Tango in Tehran"(69-70):-official sum:"An assertive Russia is choosing to pursue its own foreign-policy goals, and they differ from the West's". Highlights:"Vladimir Putin, erudite man,... gets on with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [of Iran. During Tehran visit, Putin] noted that 'Russia is the only country that has assisted Iran in implementing its peaceful nuclear program'. [He also] poured scorn on US's planned missile-defence system in Poland and Czech Republic [and] repeated Russia's threats to pull out of the INF treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles, unless its curbs are extended to other countries. Certainly Russia's foreign policy has not been helpful to US [- and] was never meant to be... Putin claims no evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and argues that further [UNSC] sanctions will do no good to anyone. Less helpful [:] sale of Russian anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. As far as Putin is concerned, Russia has its own interests which differ from US's. Russia is worried about Iran becoming a nuclear power: Iran is far nearer Moscow than Wshdc, and a nuclear power to the south is the last thing Russia wants. Nor does Putin take lightly Iran's threat to wipe out Israel... Yet Russia has no wish to alienate Iran, either. Iran has kept out of Russia's military conflict in Chechnya and has not intervened in either the Caucasus or Central Asia. Russia wants to keep it that way, and also protect its own commercial interests in Iran... Which is not to say that Russia would side with Iran in any military conflict... Putin's visit to Tehran is an example of the sort of independent foreign policy that the Kremlin favours these days... Russia may not be with Iran, but it is not with US/Europe either. It continues to oppose missile defences in Poland/Czech Republic [for political issues, see"Missile Defence in Europe: Sky High"(70):-official sum:"US needs to sell its plans more persuasively"]. It is not because they threaten Russia's own nuclear capacity, but because they do not [fit] Kremlin's world view... Russia less ready than it once was to cede to Western pressures... What is less clear is whether it will serve [its own interests] in longer term by distancing itself from the West"; Economist 08 Dec 07"Iran's Bomb Program: Pressure Works('High Confidence')"(Edit.13-4) :-off.sum:"US's spies have changed their minds. But nuclear Iran remains a danger". Highlights: "In 2005 [US intelligence] said that Iran had a secret nuclear program and was determined to get a bomb. Now they say they were wrong about that. [For more on the revised analysis and US reactions, see:"Iran: Nuclear Fallout [in WSHDC]"(38):off.sum:"[US] spooks change their tune, and [US] politicians recalibrate". For also Iranian reaction:"Iran's Nuclear Program: What's Not To Celebrate?"(53-4):off.sum:"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks Iran is home free".] NIE says with 'high confidence' that although Iran was indeed working on a bomb until 03, it then stopped. By middle of 07, it had probably ('moderate confidence') not started again. Unless it got fuel for a bomb from abroad, would take at least until late 09 ('moderate confidence'), but more likely between 2010 and 15 to make it at home. [I]ntelligence is... system of best guesses based on incomplete evidence[, but as] 16 agencies signed report[,] most unlikely to be a tissue of lies. [H]owever, relieved [US] doves... had better read the report again[:] final sentence says ('high confidence') that Iran has scientific/technical/industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if chooses. ['A]t a minimum' it is keeping the option open[, t]roubling because Iran can continue to work towards a bomb without resuming secret program US now thinks stopped in 03... But creating warhead is easier part of building a bomb. Harder by far is making the fuel [which] Iran continues to do, in defiance of UNSC, at uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz. For now, Iran enriching uranium at below weapons grade[, but] to get the uranium to weapons grade it has only to run the stuff often enough through Natanz's centrifuges... The case for US pre-eption [attack] now becomes almost impossible to sell [ - ] probably a good thing. [R]eport may also make it harder for US and EU to maintain, let alone sharpen, [UN] sanctions... to make Iran stop work at Natanz... US may have to show new flexibility[:] it could offer to talk to Iran [ - which might refuse,] but that would at least make it clear which side was the spoiler"; Economist 19 Jan 08"The Militarisation of Space: Dangerous Driving in the Heavans"(Edit. 13-4):-off.sum:"World needs a better code of conduct for spacefarers". Highlights:"In space, something like a free-for-all prevails... Year ago, US fumed when China tested a missile by shooting up one of its own weather satellites [and] created the worst-ever cloud of man-made debris in the heavens... Second reason for anger[:] US is space's pre-eminent military power. Or, more exactly,.. it has used space to preserve/extend the pre-eminent military power it enjoys on earth... China showed could, if chose, blow apart the spy and navigation satellites on which US armed forces... depend. Indeed, test may[be] intended to send precisely this warning. [Item then draws attention to dangers of a clash in space and (how) military and civilian uses of space have blurred together, both via:"Briefing: Militarising Space: Disharmony in the Spheres"(25-8):-off. sum:"Modern US warfare relies on satellites[, making] US powerful but also vulnerable,.. in light of China's new celestial assertiveness".] Why big powers so far failed to negotiate either arms-control agreements or simple rules of the road?.. Russia and China have offered to negotiate a treaty banning space weapons [but] US not sure whether that is feasible. How [to] define what is a weapon, since any flying object can be made into one simply by bashing it into someone else's satellite? [US] refusal even to begin to talk about a weapon ban in space has been unduly rigid... Since US invested most in space, could suffer more if war or accident were to fill space. In meantime, big spacefaring countries ought to consider some less formal rules of road"; Economist 02 Feb 08"Nuclear Proliferation: Has Iran Won?"(Edit.13);"Briefing: Iran's Nuclear Program: As the Enrichment Machines Spin On"(31-3):-these items reflect serious concern about a possibly impending explosion of global nuclear weapons holders. Both concentrate on Iran's new confidence, noting that US National Intelligence Estimate(NIE) had "said in Dec 07 that... Iran stopped its secret nuclear-weapons program in 2003", and that IAEA's Dir-Gen Mohamed ElBaradei is "helping Iran to set its nuclear house in order [and] receive a clean bill of health". Editorial concludes: "One obvious danger is that a nuclear-armed Iran, or one suspected of being able to weaponise at will, could set off a chain reaction that turns Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, even Turkey, rapidly nuclear too... Multiplying Mideast nuclear rivalries would drive up exponentially the risk that someone could miscalculate - with dreadful consequences. [I]f Iran is bent on having a bomb, deterrence is [best]. Bush has already said US will keep Israel from harm. By extending its security umbrella to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, US might stifle further rivalry before the region goes critical. Much better, however, to avoid a nuclear Iran altogether. Bush... can still do this[:] he does have... the offer of a grand bargain to address the gamut of differences between US and Iran, from the future of Iraq to the Mideast peace process. So far Iran's leaders have brushed aside US offer of talks 'anytime, anywhere' and about 'anything' by pointing to the condition attached: that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment. Strangely enough, the best way to put pressure on Iran's now is for US to drop that rider. There would need to be a time limit or Iran could simply enrich on regardless[, and] Russia and China would need to agree to much tougher sanctions to help concentrate minds... If Iran's leaders cannot be persuaded any other way, perhaps they can be embarrassed out of their bomb plans"; Strobe Talbott The Great Experiment: The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, and the Quest for a Global Nation(New York: Simon&Schuster 2008):-Unique 400p offers varied information on events, cultures, organizations, and influential people -but with one theme in common. That is: the historic and recently-accelerating evolution of the idea whether/how humanity should create some global administration to deal with now-multiplying planet-wide activities and issues. Particularly stressed: European and US political philosophy; recent US foreign policy; League of Nations and United Nations; nuclear weapons. "Conclusion"(393-401) includes following: "[Next US] administration should... waste no time in demonstrating that respect for international law is once again part of the bedrock of US foreign policy... UN has permanent advantage of combining universal membership, global scope, and comprehensive agenda[, but] UN needs to be incorporated into an increasingly variegated network of structures and arrangements... Someday UN may have at its disposal on-call forces to deter, contain, and, if necessary, defeat and replace aggressive/dangerous regimes... When it comes to peacemaking/peacekeeping, UN could provide... coordination among regional groupings. [G]lobal politics will hinge largely on trends in global economy...Ensuring peaceful century will depend in large measure on narrowing divide between those who feel like winners and... losers in process of globalization... It is humankind's self-inflicted misfortune not to have... much time to come to grips with... a new wave of nuclear weapons proliferation [and] tipping point in process of climate change. These mega-threats can be held at bay in the crucial years ahead only through multilateralism on a scale far beyond anything world achieved to date. [Essential US policies are then recommended in some detail.] Projections indicate that the more onerous effects of climate change will be in poorer parts of world [and] likely to cause or hasten the failure of fragile states. In failing, they will teach us the linkage between their misery and our insecurity: failed states are often outlaw states, sources of regional instability, incubators of terrorism, and thriving markets for lethal technology... As world increases its reliance on nuclear-generated energy, emerging nations will need assistance from advanced ones to build and fuel hundreds of new nuclear-power plants... If we take steps necessary to fend off specific, imminent, and existential threats, we will be giving ourselves time and useful experience for lifting global governance to a higher level"; Economist 05 Apr 08"Israel at 60: The Dysfunctional Jewish State"(Edit.17):-off.sum:"Best 60th birthday present Israel could give itself is a new political system". Highlights:"Many reasons why Israeli-Palestinian conflict has remained so intractable: land, religion, national identity, history, scars of violence, meddling of outside powers, and global ideological strife. But less attention [to] Israeli electoral system... now needs a system that makes politicians answerable to voters, not to other politicians. Shape it should take... is up to Israelis. Unfortunately... it is unlikely to be optimal; but almost anything would be better than what there is now". Directly related is: "Special Report on Israel: The Next Generation"(Special 1-16):-off.sum:"Israel at 60 is as prosperous and secure as it has ever been, but its future looks increasingly uncertain, says Gideon Lichfield". Final points of this introductory essay:"[E]merged stronger from second Palestinian intifada, which... killed 946 Israelis/over 3,100 Palestinians. [T]alks on a Palestinian state look doomed to failure... Many Jews from the diaspora already view Israel as spiritually impoverished and uninviting. [Also see neighbouring] threats: potential nuclear bomb in Iran; one of the world's most powerful guerrilla armies in Lebanon; growing extremism among Palestinians; everywhere the rise of popular Islamist parties that threaten to topple reluctantly pro-Western Arab autocrats. For first time since 1948, real existential threats to Israel, at least in its Zionist form, are on the horizon. [R]eport considers how well equipped [Israel is to take right decisions]". Titles/off.sum of other essays: "Fenced In":"Short-term safety is not providing long-term security, and sometimes works against it". "To Fight, Perchance To Die":"Policing the Palestinians has eroded the soul of Israel's 'people's army'". "Miracles and Mirages":"A strong economy built on weak fundamentals". "A House of Many Mansions":"Israeli Jews are becoming more disparate but also somewhat more tolerant of each other". "Hanging On":"The settlers are regrouping from their defeat in Gaza". "How the Other Fifth Lives":"Arab-Israelis are increasingly treated as the enemy within". "A Systemic Problem":"Many of Israel's troubles stem from its political system. But can politicians fix it?" "The Next Zionist Revolution":"Zionism is nearly twice as old as Israel. The debate about what it means continues to shape the country". Economist 10 May 08"The Palestinians: Still Stateless After All These Years"(Edit.16):-off. sum: "They need the world's help. But the Palestinians could also help themselves". Highlights: "Israelis celebrate and Palestinians mourn the war of 1948 that created a state for the Jews but resulted in the flight of a large portion of Palestine's then Arab majority. [F]ate of the two sides is as lopsided as ever. Israel is not just an established state but a dynamic and prosperous one. By contrast, the lot of the Palestinians is wretched". Editorial then draws attention to carefully researched/worded: "Briefing: The Palestinians: Ever Wandering" (57-9):-off.sum:"Whether they be in Nahr-al-Bared, Nazareth or Nablus, Palestinians are united by loss and by hope". Text is too complex to summarize, but also too relevant to Palestinian instabilities not to read in its totality. Remaining highlights of Editorial:"The state they were promised under UN partition plan of 1947remains tantalisingly beyond reach. [F]eeling of baffled impotence is a danger[: while] the world has a moral obligation to help[, this] cause electrifies millions of Muslims and helps to stir the global jihad. [Moreover,] it can certainly never be solved without the full attention of US, that has the power to coax or coerce [Israel] into territorial compromise. The Palestinians must play their part too. [Hamas] leaders hint that if Israel gave up all territory conquered in 1967, it would earn a long-term truce... But they can help themselves by putting history behind them and coming to terms, as Israelis say they already have, with the obvious". Economist 09 Aug 08"Geopolitics: Win the Small Wars First"(56):-a new US National Defence Strategy was issued by Pentagon 01 Aug 08 under the novel defence secretary Robert Gates. Its radical focus change contains much in common with the "anti-violence" elements of my global paper: WHY ALL SOCIETIES ON EARTH MUST COOPERATE. Highlights:"[F]or the foreseeable future, [US's/world's?] biggest worry will be small messy wars, fought with messy alliances with messy outcomes; more... campaigns against the likes of al-Qaeda... Military force is no longer the only, or even primary tool. Soft power rather than hard is given priority: less emphasis on need to capture/kill terrorists, and more on winning allegiance of indigenous populations for their local governments. Most important military task 'is not the fighting we do ourselves,but how well we help prepare our partners to defend and govern themselves'... Gates' view is seeing a complex world where US [all national?] power is curtailed, and military action must give way to diplomacy, as well as economic and other civilian levers. The system of international rules is less a constraint on US, more a vital element of its security; allies are assets who 'often possess capabilities, skills and knowledge we cannot duplicate'. Dealing with ungoverned space where terrorists may thrive is... 'working with and through local actors whenever possible' to help them extend their writ. '[Victory'] will involve 'discrediting extremist ideology, creating fissures between/among extremist groups and reducing them to level of nuisance groups'... US[world?] must 'display a mastery of irregular warfare'[, a strong element of which involves cooperation". Economist 16 Aug 08"Nuclear Disarmament: Swords and Ploughshares"(56):-off.sum:"The new nuclear pioneers". Highlights:"Britain as a 'disarmament laboratory'? [H]ome of Atomic Weapons Establishment research/design continues on Trident-based nuclear warheads. AWE's [recent] purpose: finding solutions to some of the many difficulties disarmament would pose... Britain is not about to disarm unilaterally [but] probably have to vote before long on replacing the missiles and warheads too... AWE has cooperated... on techniques for verifying when a country promises to cut weapons, it really does. This involves finding ways to let inspectors snoop about where fissile materials are present, [but] without spreading the knowledge of how to build a bomb. [After] learning how difficult all this is,.. results will be presented to NPT preparatory meeting in 09. At maximum 160 warheads, British deterrent now probably the smallest of the official five: US and Russia still have thousands of warheads; France has fewer than 300; China is thought to have up to 200. The lower you go, the more confidence everyone needs that cuts can be properly verified... [N]eed to be sure others not diverting their nuclear materials and parts to a secret stash... [UK] defence secretary suggested representatives from the weapons labs of all five official nuclear powers meet to see if some of the technologies mastered for weapons building could in future be turned to verification tasks". Economist 16 Aug 08"The War in Georgia: Russia Resurgent"(Edit.11):-highlights:"On 07 Aug, Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's president, embarked on an ill-judged assault on South Ossetia, one of his country's two breakaway enclaves. Russian tanks, troops and aircraft poured across the border. After pulverising Georgian armed forces, Russia announced it was ending its operations. This brutal and efficient move was a victory for Vladimir Putin,.. not just over Georgia but also over the West, which trying to prise away countries on Russia's western borders and turn them democratic, market-oriented and friendly".Full account of the background is provided in "Briefing: Russia and Georgia: A Scripted War"(24-6):-off.sum:"Both sides are to blame for the Russian-Georgian war, but it ran according to a Russian plan". Flavour of the many items in Economist 23 Aug 08 are even more upset/frustrated about impact/future: "NATO and the Invasion of Georgia: How to Contain Russia"(Edit.10-11):-off.sum:"There is no quick fix, but an over-confident Russia is weaker than it looks". Highlights:"Medvedev/Putin seem enjoying the world's impotent indignation... They know West will not fight for territorial integrity of Georgia [and] will face no serious economic punishment. [M]any [NATO] members need a lot of business with Russia to continue [oil/gas]. US needs Russia, too, to secure vital foreign-policy objectives [Iran]. [I]t is hard to see what any outsider can do. [W]ider [Russian] aims not yet achieved, however [-] include toppling Saakashvili, and using intimidation to stop Georgia and Ukraine from following other... former dominions into the orbit of West and thence into NATO. To put things in perspective, US GDP is 10 times Russia's[; defence spending] at least 7 times. Russia's economy would fall if energy prices slumped, and population is shrinking 800,000/year. Russia can make mischief, but it cannot project military/ideological power all around the world... A weak power can be more reckless than a strong one. Russia needs to learn that... Western alliance can still unite in front of a challenge... Finding the line between disapproval, pressure, continued engagement will be hard... But there is vital work to be done - nuclear proliferation/ arms reduction - in which need for cooperation with Russia outweighs the need to punish it. So Russia will keep its tanks in Georgia if it wants to. But the longer it does so, the less Europe will want to rely on Russia for energy, the longer it will wait to join World Trade Organization, the more hostile the next US president will be , and the more its nervous neighbours will be tempted to turn to West for safety. Job now is to explain to Russia that this may not have been such a victory for machismo, after all". Other related items from 23 Aug issue with mainly off.sums only: "Russia and the West: After Georgia"(41-2):-"After Georgia's defeat, the West struggles to deal with a newly belligerent Russia". "The European Union and Georgia: Treaty Gamesmanship"(42): -"Not even the Lisbon treaty could create European unity over Russia". "The War in Georgia: A Caucasian Journey"(42-4):-"Our correspondent travels the route north from Tbilisi to Beslan [i.e. across damaged Georgia, including South Ossetia, and then into North Ossetia in Russia]. "Missile Defence in Europe: Behind [United States'] Shield"(44-3):-"A deal on missile defences [to be in Czech Republic and Poland against Iranian potential] angers Russia even though they may not work". "Poland, Ukraine and the Baltics: Nervous Neighbours"(45):-"Russia's war in Georgia troubles its western neighbours". "Energy Security in Europe: Dependent Territory"(45-6):-"War in Georgia puts energy security back on Europe's agenda". "Turkey and the Caucasus: Waiting and Watching"(46):-"A large NATO country ponders a bigger role in the Caucasus [particularly pipelines - see 16 Aug 08"Caucasus Pipelines: The Dangers of the Safe Route", Armenia, Azerbaijan]". "Bagehot: Lost in the Caucasus"(50):-"The prime minister vanished; the leader of the opposition materialised in Tbilisi. Britain had a bad war". Economist 30 Aug 08 also offers several good items on Georgia confrontations."Russia and Georgia: Put Out Even More Flags"(49-51):-highlights:"Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia will reverberate for a long time - not least at home... Did Russia's security chiefs fear that the two presidents[, Russia's Medvedev and Georgia's Saakashvili,] might agree on something that would spoil their long-planned conflict? Did Vladimir Putin... crave a small, victorious war? Or did Saakashvili think Medvedev was too soft to respond to Georgia's attempt to regain control over South Ossetia? The answer may never be known. But after barely 100 days in office, the soft-spoken Medvedev was cast in the unlikely role of war leader. [P]artition of Georgia may cause long-term confrontation between Russia and the West. [A] Russian nationalist ideologue [proclaimed:] 'The time of patriots is coming: the time for revenge for all the humiliation... we have been suffering for years'. [But independence] could easily reignite separatist sentiment in the North Caucasus".

"Russia and Georgia: South Ossetia is Not Kosovo"(Edit.14-5):-off.sum:"Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia cannot be justified by a bogus comparison to Kosovo". Editorial reports the many basic differences between the cases. The Kosovo problems are also described in summaries above, as well as updated in new item: "Georgia and the Balkans: Parallel Bars" (50):-off.sum:"Serbia and Kosovo ponder their positions after the war in Georgia". Concern about Russia's tough actions against Georgia as formerly part of USSR is reported in "Central Asia and Russia: An Old Sweet Song"(44):-highlights:"Russia's Central Asian underbelly rumbles queasily... [S]ince collapse of Soviet Union, US and China have growing interests and investments in the region. This has helped check any overweening Russian dominance... Even if the region need not fear Russian invasion, the war in the Caucasus does pose a threat". "Charlemagne: Unity is Strength"(54):-off.sum:"There are reasons why European countries find it hard to unite against Russia". Highlights:"Will the benefits of European unity ever trump the pursuit of national interests when it comes to Russia? Optimists... say that a more united Europe still has the chance to prod Russia into being a more reliable partner, wedded to the rule of law, international norms and other virtues. Pessimists say EU unlikely to show much grit and unity until Russian behaviour becomes a lot more threatening". Here are the relevant items from Economist 06 Sep 08. "After Georgia: Europe Stands Up to Russia"(Edit.11):-off.sum:"EU has wobbled woefully, yet Russia too will pay dearly for its Georgian adventure". Highlights:"[T]here is a deep, wounding division that stretches far beyond wrecked Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia[:-] damage to relations between Russia and West... That was background against which Europe's squabbling leaders met 01 Sep [and] united enough to condemn Russia's actions and produce a punishment of sorts". Details of situation and EU decision offered via: "Briefing: The West and Russia: Cold Comfort"(29-32):-off.sum. and conclusion:"The EU unites in rather mild and belated criticism of Russia's war in Georgia... Russia scored a pleasant victory over a weak and unpopular adversary. But now it has to deal with the consequences: war fever at home plus alienated allies and stronger critics abroad."; "The North Caucasus: Murder as Problem Solver" (30):-off.sum. and high point:"Russia could find that it is getting more than it bargained for... For past 17 years, north Caucasus has been Russia's poorest and most violent region. Now... war in Georgia may have triggered new cycle of repression and resistance."; "Georgia After the War: Nervous Interval"(32):-off.sum. and high point:"When still under part occupation, it's wiser not to play at politics... Medvedev may have thought that by calling Mikheil Saakashvili 'a political corpse'... he would hasten the Georgian president's downfall. In fact, his attack has had the opposite effect". Return to Editorial: "In fact, both Europe and Russia have lost. European response has been weak[:] not even insisted on formal restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity. [I]n effect condoned Russia's smash and grab. Thus the second casualty, after wretched Georgia, is the idea of a common European foreign and security policy... Such a collective Euro-shrug only stores up trouble, since there are other places where Russia enjoys fomenting bother. [A smirking Putin and Medvedev... think they have triumphed diplomatically well. Putin] aim is to restore Russia as a great power... Russia wants more respect... Yet the limits of Russia's 'victory' are becoming clear. [China] has expressed 'concern'. None of Russia's other friends... has volunteered support. And while the Georgia adventure may have scared the neighbours, Russia's support for separatists... risks emboldening its own would-be breakaway regions, notably in north Caucasus... But what Russia may come to regret losing most is something Putin longs for: the opportunity to become an accepted European power". Economist 13 Sep 08 "Russia and Georgia: To End a War"(58):-off.sum:"Russian troops pull back under another ceasefire deal, but new ambiguities arise over deploying European monitors". Highlights :"[N]ew deal is ambiguous and tension remains high... Deal says that some 200 EU monitors will replace Russians in the buffer zone, and also talks of a separate EU mission whose observers will, says Sarkozy, be able to go wherever they want... Russian FM saying that observers cannot enter the enclaves. Agreement adds that Russian troops should withdraw to positions they held before the war, and Georgian troops should return to barracks. [P]lain where the biggest problems will arise. EU's monitors may be welcomed in the buffer zone around South Ossetia, but they will have trouble getting into the two enclaves". Regional/EU effects of tough Russian confrontation: "Ukraine: Near-Abroad Blues"(Edit.16-7):-off.sum:"EU should offer Ukraine and Russia's other neighbours a clearer path towards membership". "Russia's Western Neighbours: Ukraine Comes to the Forefront"(57-8):-off.sum:"An already fragile Ukraine has been made a lot more nervous by Russia's war with Georgia - and is not alone". "Charlemagne: A Worrying New World Order" (61):-off.sum:"Europe frets about its place in a different world order". Economist 22 Nov 08"Missile Defence: A Damp Squid"(63):-off.sum:"US missile-defence plans falter in eastern Europe". Highlights:"Iran's new medium-range missile, the Sajil,.. marks a technological breakthrough. It is fast and has a claimed range of 2,000km (Moscow/southern Italy). Yet both Russia and Italy opposed to US plans to place ten interceptor rockets in Poland and anti-missile radar in Czech Republic. Italian PM... criticised because 'provoked' Russia; Kremlin threatened to put short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad exclave... if missile-defence deployment goes ahead. Sarkozy, French president presiding over EU, said 14 Nov that US plan 'does nothing to bring security and complicates things'. That infuriated Polish and Czech counterparts[, and] Sarkozy issued partial retraction, saying nobody should put new missiles in Europe pending talks with Russia about new security arrangements for entire continent... [US's] Obama seems unenthusiastic about missile defence as well [-] says he will support program 'if it works'... All this leaves the Poles and Czechs who pushed for missile defence (against [dim] public opinion) exposed... Poland interested not only in US security guarantee... that base implies[, but] also promises of US help with Polish military modernisation and... to protect Warsaw. If Obama freezes missile defence[,] other parts of deal will be in doubt".