DATE=5/3/2000
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=ARGUING MISSILE DEFENSE
NUMBER=5-46254
BYLINE=ED WARNER
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=

VOICED AT:


INTRO:  Amid professions of friendship, Russian and 
American legislators sharply disagree on U-S 
deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system.  At a 
conference on Capitol Hill, U-S Congress members were 
emphatic that the system would be built.  Russians 
were just as firm in declaring the system a mistake 
that would jeopardize relations between the two 
nations.  V-O-A's Ed Warner reports the discussion.

TEXT:  What has happened to the good feelings that 
once characterized U-S-Russian relations?  That 
question was asked repeatedly by both American and 
Russian legislators at a recent conference held by the 
Free Congress Foundation and the American University 
of Moscow.

There were a variety of answers.  Russians were upset 
by the expansion of NATO and the bombing of Kosovo.  
Americans objected to the war in Chechnya and the 
pervasive corruption in Russia.

But the key issue was the U-S anti-ballistic missile 
system.  Russian legislators insisted this would 
dramatically shift the balance of forces between the 
two countries.

A foreign policy adviser to the Russian duma, Arkady 
Murashev, said his country couldn't compete with the 
United States on such a technologically complex 
project.  He says that damages relations even if it 
has not yet proved to work:
 
            /// MURASHEV ACT ///

      As a former physicist, I do not believe that 
      this system can be a 100-percent guarantee from 
      the real threats, which exist in the world.  
      Somehow the process is more important than the 
      result.  And to start the right process is very 
      important.  At this particular period in 
      history, it is very important to have a good 
      relationship between our countries.

            /// END ACT /// 

Former C-I-A Director James Woolsey said Russia may 
not have a great deal to worry about.  In terms of 
missile defense, it is still not clear if a bullet can 
hit a bullet. 

Mr. Woolsey cited a recent Pentagon briefing for 
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov:

             /// WOOLSEY ACT ///

      The subject of the briefing was the 
      ineffectiveness of the U-S ballistic missile 
      defense system.  I imagine if you were sitting 
      in either Baghdad or Pyonyang and reading the 
      press reports of that meeting, you would be 
      smiling as you learned how the radars would not 
      be able to operate effectively with more 
      interceptors than the 100 that are designed, and 
      the like.

            /// END ACT ///

Even so, Senator Jon Kyl insisted the United States 
would deploy a national missile defense.  It is not 
just the current threat that is a concern, he said, 
but future nuclear proliferation by hostile states:

             /// KYL ACT ///

      A majority of the members of the Senate, I 
      believe, support the proposition that missile 
      defense protection should be provided to our 
      allies as well, and no one I know excludes 
      Russia from that possible protection.  The 
      threat is from rogue nations.  The defense is 
      only effective against their relatively 
      primitive missile systems.  It is not designed 
      to be effective against the strategic forces of 
      Russia.

            /// END ACT /// 

Russian legislators said the United States exaggerates 
the danger of so-called rogue states like North Korea, 
Iran, and Iraq.  Are they really going to risk 
attacking the United States when retaliation would be 
swift and massive?

The President of Russia House in Washington, Edward 
Lozansky, asked participants if America and Russia 
could collaborate on missile defense:
 
            /// LOZANSKY ACT ///

      Senator Jon Kyl reaffirmed that once the United 
      States develops this technology, it will also be 
      offered to Russia.  I want to go one step 
      further.  Would the United States welcome 
      Russian participation in developing this system?  
      Instead of simply talking of developing this 
      system and give it to Russia, why not invite 
      Russia to share a joint system?

            /// END ACT ///

Some members of Congress said they would have to think 
about it.  Others said no.  The conference thoroughly 
aired the issue, but at the end, Russians and 
Americans remained divided on missile defense.   
(SIGNED)


NEB/EW/RAE



03-May-2000 13:59 PM EDT (03-May-2000 1759 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America
.