The strange news judgment of the New York Times was on display once again when it ran a lead front page story on April 30th about how the Bush Administration was preparing to break out of the ABM treaty in order to deploy a national missile defense system. The first paragraph of the story said the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty "has been the cornerstone of arms control for nearly 30 years." The Administration's decision was depicted as alarming and dangerous.
But that claim about the treaty is just plain false. The ABM treaty, which was signed with the Soviet Union, died when the Soviet Union broke apart. But the Times had a clever way of distorting that critical fact. In a box on page one next to the story itself, the Times explained that the ABM treaty was "later extended to Russia and other ex-Soviet nuclear states..." Extended? By whom?
Treaties are supposed to be ratified by the U.S. Senate with a two-thirds vote. The "extension" of the ABM treaty was never ratified by or even submitted to the Senate. It was "extended" at the whim of President Bill Clinton himself. This aspect of the controversy was not explained at all by the New York Times. What's more, the Times completely ignored the evidence that the Soviets, and now the Russians violated the ABM treaty.
The Clinton administration renegotiated the ABM treaty, signing agreements with the states of the former Soviet Union, but it refused to submit them to the Senate for ratification. This was a subject of bitter controversy. Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had asked for them to be submitted, knowing that they would be rejected. In regard to the ABM and other matters, the Wall Street Journal commented that, under Clinton, "treaties are no longer submitted to the Senate, but simply negotiated and implemented by executive order as the law of the land."
This background makes laughable the Times claim that the ABM treaty has been the "cornerstone" of arms control. But it's even more ridiculous when you consider the evidence that the Soviets massively violated it. Former CIA/DIA official William T. Lee's book on the matter, The ABM Treaty Charade: A Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion, proves that the Russians have violated the ABM treaty by integrating thousands of dual purpose anti-aircraft weapons with large radars that provide warnings of a missile attack. Lee says the Russians are set to obtain a big strategic advantage if they continue to improve their nuclear arsenal and if we continue to adhere to the discredited ABM treaty.
In view of these circumstances, the New York Times claim that the ABM treaty is seen as "legally binding on both the United States and Russia" is ludicrous. The Soviets and the Russians have not been held liable under this treaty for massively violating it. And legally speaking, the Russians and the Americans are not bound by the document anyway.
The Bush Administration would be well-advised to make this argument forcefully to the media, especially the New York Times.
Contact Me Conservative Secular Commentaries
