Hint of Gain on Missile Issue

U.S. officials cautioned against expecting too much from President Clinton’s talks last weekend with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, and from outward signs they were right. Two modest agreements were reached, but Clinton failed to wrest any concrete concessions from Putin on the issue of amending the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Revision or abrogation of the treaty will be required if the United States decides to deploy the yet unproven and hugely costly national missile defense system that supporters say could protect America against limited missile attack.

On the positive side, Moscow and Washington agreed to dispose of 37 tons of weapons-grade plutonium over the next 20 years. Most would be devoted to power generation. Left unanswered were how a nearly broke Russia will find $1.7 billion to finance its end of the bargain and where the United States will deposit the 8.5 tons of chemically “immobilized” plutonium its own reactors don’t need. More than half a century into the Nuclear Age, the United States still lacks permanent disposal methods and sites for nuclear material.

To reduce the risk that test-fired missiles from one or the other country might be misinterpreted, the two sides agreed to set up a joint warning center in Moscow to exchange information on ballistic missile launchings. Along with much else in its arsenal, Russia’s strategic early warning system has deteriorated in recent years. The joint warning center would lessen the chance that Russia might mistake a routine missile launching for an attack.

Putin’s public opposition to amending the ABM treaty may not stand as his final word. In Moscow, Clinton urged a close reading of the language in the statement on strategic stability that he and Putin signed on Sunday. Analysts who applied a magnifying glass to the document profess to see a clear shift in the Kremlin’s attitude. They cite a section saying that the two presidents want “to enhance [the ABM treaty’s] viability and effectiveness in the future, taking into account any changes in the international security environment.”

Those changes implicitly refer to North Korea, Iraq or Iran acquiring intercontinental missiles. The interpretation is that Putin has left the door open to amending the treaty, if the strategic situation warrants it. Meanwhile, Putin is offering fellow Europeans his own plan for a Russian-NATO missile defense system.

The Russian leader has hinted that at some point Russia might want to talk about a U.S. sea-based system that could--like the land system he is proposing for Europe--destroy ballistic missiles seconds after they were launched; this contrasts with a system that tries to hit warheads as they are descending. A limited defensive system like one based at sea would get around Moscow’s concern that a U.S. land-based antimissile system could be expanded to a point where Russia’s nuclear deterrent would be neutralized. A mobile sea-based system, which has supporters on both sides of the missile defense debate in the United States, is banned by the ABM treaty, as are mobile systems on land, in the air and in space. But it may be something that Putin and the next U.S. president will want to discuss.