|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Will the INF Treaty Reduce the Danger of War?: It Will Weaken NATO Solidarity
| Article
# : |
14534 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
3 / 1988 |
2,512 Words |
| Author
: |
Werner Kaltefleiter
Werner Kaltefleiter is director of the Institute of Political
Science at Christian-Albrechts University in Kiel, West
Germany. |
The year 1987 has been called the "year of disarmament" by West German Chancellor Kohl. These are remarkable words, but they seem justified in view of the conclusion of the agreemend regarding short- and intermediate-range missiles. The hopes and arguments of those in favor of the agreement justifiably point to the fact that the treaty contains three new elements unknown to any previous arms control agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union.
For the first time, a treaty actually includes the reduction of weapons; previous SALT agreements simply froze the number of single-weapon systems at a certain level. Furthermore, for the first time, a whole category of weapons, namely those with ranges between 500 and 5,000 kilometers (km), will be abolished. Thirdly, never before has an agreement meant that--at least at first glance--Soviet concessions would be greater: The Soviet Union will have to dismantle more than 1,000 systems, while only 316 will be done away with on the American side. Even if the 72 Pershing IAs of West Germany were included, the number of systems concerned on the Western side would be slightly below 400, which would mean a ratio of 2.5 to 1.
Significant changes have also been made in the process of verification: For the first time, on-site inspections have been agreed to over a period of 13 years.
Nevertheless, are these new elements reason enough for German and world public opinion to welcome the agreement enthusiastically? In fact, they seem of only superficial importance. The key question is not whether there are more or fewer weapons; what is important are the repercussions this would have for the security of the Atlantic alliance.
Sometimes it seems as if public discussions are based on the assumption that the threat emanates from weapon systems. This, however, is wrong, because threats only exist when one side is prepared to use these weapon systems. Accordingly, if there is a threat, it emanates from the internal structure of the Soviet Union as it exists today. To make this clear by exaggeration, one could say that if the Soviet Union were to become a Western-style democracy tomorrow, Soviet missiles would no longer be a threat.
As far as the consequences the INF agreement will have for the security of the alliance, one must first determine NATO's reason for the famous dual-track decision of 1979, which was carried out in 1983 with the deployment of intermediate-range missiles--Pershing IIs
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
