A missile that shields from Republican attack

A missile that shields from Republican attack

The failure of Saturday's test of the Clinton administration's prototype missile defence system should be the clinching argument for delaying any construction of such a system until the next presidential term. More rigorous testing and patient diplomacy will be needed before a decision can be responsibly taken. In practical terms, those requirements should defer building a missile defence system at least until the next president takes office.

Designing a missile shield that could protect against limited attack from erratic states like North Korea, Iran or Iraq is reasonable. But the prototype system now being tested has not yet been shown to be sufficiently reliable to protect American cities. In the three tests so far, the interceptor twice missed the mock incoming warhead and produced one partial success.

Given the latest test failure, Washington has every reason not to rush its decision on building the system, especially since ordering construction now would unravel existing arms control treaties.

The administration's original goal was to have a system ready by 2005, when intelligence agencies estimate that North Korea might be able to reach Alaskan or Hawaiian soil with a few crude nuclear-armed missiles. But whether North Korea is likely to do so is also an important consideration. Since last fall, North Korea has been observing a moratorium on long-range missile tests. Other potential threats, like Iran and Iraq, are considered many years away from being able to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles.

That leaves no compelling reason for ordering construction other than the perception that doing so might shield Al Gore from Republican attack. Partisan political considerations should not drive such an important defence decision.

Excerpted from an editorial comment in the ``International Herald Tribune, July 11

Whatever the motive behind the call for autonomy and whatever its worth, the Indian Cabinet's summary refusal to accede to it points to the uncompromising mindset of the leadership at New Delhi. So scared have the Indians become of the surging wave of armed resistance to their occupation that they cannot countenance any loosening of the stranglehold, for fear that it might reinforce several other break-away movements going on elsewhere in the country. Home Minister L.K. Advani has been quoted as saying that: ``If we had accepted this, it would have set in motion certain things which would have not been good for national unity''. It is not just the ruling BJP which is experiencing this fear. V.P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar and Inder Kumar Gujral -- all former Prime Ministers -- have rejected the autonomy call outright. As we have said repeatedly in these columns, the only approach that could bear fruit is for the Indians to give up their recalcitrant attitude, stop the rampant repression in the Valley and honourtheir promises to let the people of Jammu and Kashmir exercise their right of self-determination. It is never too late to realise that it is criminal to sacrifice peace and the welfare of the people at the altar of self-aggrandisement.

Excerpted from an editorial comment in ``The Nation'' , July 6