|
|
The ABM Treaty
| Article
# : |
22168 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
10 / 1987 |
7,480 Words |
| Author
: |
Sam Nunn, Morton A. Kaplan, James Hackett, and Thomas Moorer
|
A 'Narrow' Interpretation
by Sam Nunn
In his article, Morton Kaplan advances a reading of the ABM Treaty even broader than that proclaimed by the Reagan administration in October 1985. Whereas the administration claims that the treaty permits the unrestricted development and testing of space-based or otherwise mobile ABM systems or components based on "other physical principles" (that is, "exotic" ABMs), Kaplan argues that exotic ABMs can be developed, tested, and even deployed.
It is interesting to note that this is not the first time that such a permissive interpretation of the treaty has been put forward. In fact, this view was considered and formally rejected by both the Carter and Reagan administrations.
Carter Administration Views
As I noted in part III of my report to the Senate on the ABM interpretation issue (March 13, 1987), Raymond Garthoff, the executive officer of the U.S. SALT I delegation, published an article in 1977 in International Security on the ABM Treaty negotiations. In this article, he made a cryptic reference to the treaty's limitations on exotic ABMs, noting only that they were banned.
In a letter to the editor published in the next issue of this periodical, a RAND Corporation analyst, Abraham Becker, argued that a reasonable reading of Agreed Statement D indicated that there were no limitations on exotic ABMs, including no ban on their deployment. Becker wrote, "I am not a lawyer, but [Agreed Statement D] seems to me to impose no obligation other than, perhaps, to 'discuss'." Becker's main contention was that "there would, therefore, appear to be no prohibitions against developing, testing, or deploying any system . . . that does not employ the canonical ABM triad. The only bar to such an interpretation consists of one word in Article II, Paragraph 1--'currently'."
In a rebuttal published in the same issue, Garthoff replied as follows:
... Becker incorrectly interprets Article V as not applying to futuristic types of systems including components capable of substituting for ABM interceptor missiles, ABM launchers, or ABM radars. The reason for his erroneous interpretation is that he curiously assumes that "the only bar to such an interpretation consists of one word." The same could be said of the Ten Commandments. One word can indeed make a critical difference, and the word "currently" was deliberately inserted into a previously adopted text of Article II at the time agreement was reached on the future systems ban in order to have the very effect of closing a loophole to the ban on futures in both Articles III and V (and several others). The wording of the key introductory sentence of Article II was also agreed on at the time and for that purpose.
While admittedly the result has a Rube Goldberg air to it, the interlocking effect of the final wording of Articles II and III and Agreed Interpretation [D] was intentionally devised and clearly understood--by both Delegations--to ban future "ABM systems based on other physical principles and capable of substituting for ABM interceptor missiles, ABM launchers, or ABM radars"
...
Read Full Article
|
|
