PLEADING NORTH KOREA IN THE CASE OF MISSILE DEFENSE - June 7, 2009

North Korea’s recent saber rattling has revived the missile defense debate on Capitol Hill. The communist country has test-fired six missiles since detonating an underground nuclear device last Monday, with the latest being a short-range missile launch on Friday. These defiant actions, along with the lack of a united international response to them, have ignited new criticism towards the Administration’s plan to reshape the military. Congressional Republicans have begun to use these events to push support for a worldwide missile shield designed to detect and destroy ballistic missiles fired at the United States or its allies – a strategy that is beginning to gain traction.

President Barack Obama outlined his plan to reduce missile defense spending in the fiscal 2010 defense budget request by $1.4 billion or roughly 15%. These cuts included:

• A reduction in the planned number of deployed ground-based missile interceptors in Alaska and California from 44 to 30
• The elimination of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) and the Multiple Kill Vehicle program
• Cancellation of plans for a second prototype airplane for the Airborne Laser program
• No funding to build two planned missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic

The President has relied heavily on the reputation of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has a well-established record of supporting missile defense spending, to push his agenda through the legislative process. But Republicans are citing the belligerent actions of North Korea as a warning sign that America must retain its defenses and that the President’s proposals are irresponsible.

William Cohen, a Republican senator from Maine who served as President Bill Clinton's defense secretary from 1997 through 2001, says that President Obama's decision to reduce US missile-defense system funding “will embolden North Korea, Iran and other rogue states to pursue missiles of increasing range. It [will] also confuse our allies and undermine their trust in America's security guarantees. If the United States is vulnerable to the threat of a missile attack by a rogue state, allies could lose confidence in America's nuclear deterrent - which could lead nations such as Japan to pursue a nuclear deterrent of their own” (The Washington Times, Cohen: No Time to Cut Missile Defense, May 28, 2009). House Representative Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) intimated that stalling work on the European sites risks damaging diplomatic outreach to Poland and the Czech Republic and will, “leave the Poles and Czechs and all of those who have been courageous in this effort fundamentally and objectively betrayed.”

These admonitions are now being voiced by moderates who are concerned that the appearance of weakness may actually neutralize diplomatic endeavors abroad. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) sent a letter to President Obama stating, “Cooperation on missile defense is now a critical component of many of our closest security partnerships around the world. We fear that cuts to the budget for missile defense could inadvertently undermine these relationships and foster the impression that the United States is an unreliable ally,” (The Hill, Lieberman Pans Plan to cut Missile Defense, April 6, 2009). Lieberman’s opposition presents a particularly challenging situation for the Obama administration because he is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, the panel charged with assessing threats to the nation. He is also chairman of the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services panel.

Advocates for the President’s defense cuts have downplayed the effectiveness of a worldwide missile shield in fighting North Korea’s actions. However, no one opposed to these defense cuts anticipates the missile-defense system to actually protect America from a bombardment of hundreds of missiles fired from North Korea.  Washington knows that a direct attack from the country is implausible and that these launches are most likely an attempt by the impoverished country to bargain for aid or ease sanctions.  What opponents do expect is that the balance of political power in both Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia will favor both Russia and China as a result of these cuts.

Republicans consider Russian opposition to missile-defense bases to always have been based on the potential political power America stood to gain at the expense of Moscow. This is precisely why President Bush refused to submit to Russian demands to halt plans to install defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. He recognized that the extension of American alliances as a safeguard against Vladimir Putin’s empire-building aspirations and as a protection for Europe from an Iranian threat that Russia actively aided.Unfortunately, President Obama conceded these safeguards in the first months of his presidency by not including funding within the budget for the two planned missile defense sites in Eastern Europe.

Likewise, the Administration's cuts to high-technology weapons systems and power-projection platforms essential to preserving superiority in Southeast Asia categorically erode American power in the region.  China is not a postmodern, western-style power that has shrunk its military force – rather it parades its growing military might regularly. US defense spending is not always intended for war, but rather to prevent the proliferation of a nuclear arms race. “It is no accident that Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia have not acquired nuclear weapons…they have been confident in the American security umbrella. If current trends continue, are we sure those states would not reconsider the wisdom of that policy?” (The Far East Economic Review, The Erosion of U.S. Power in Asia, May 2009).

Conservative lawmakers are not prepared to barter American alliances and risk nuclear proliferation for cursory promises from our adversaries and popularity within diplomatic circles. Members of the Armed Services, Homeland Security and Appropriations committees plan to use North Korea’s recent actions to justify spending increases on missile defense and to save components targeted for elimination – an effort made easier by the ever-increasing nuclear defiance in that country.

“Pointing out the provocative actions of North Korea is going to be a big part of our approach,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), a member of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which oversees missile defense (Congressional Quarterly, Using North Korea to Make the Case for Missile Defense, May 31, 2009).

Stephanie Kimball

----------------------
Author of the article holds B.A. degree in Political Science from the University of California Davis. For the last 9 years she has been working as a Legislative Director for several Republican Assembly members in the State of California.
----------------------