Proposed Missile Defense Sale to India Still in Limbo
After more than a year of review, the United States has not yet
decided how to respond to an Israeli request to export the jointly
developed U.S.-Israeli Arrow theater missile defense system to India.
Although India has not formally asked to purchase the Arrow system,
which is designed to protect against short- and medium-range ballistic
missiles, New Delhi is exploring acquiring an anti-missile capability
and has discussed various systems with Washington. India and Pakistan
are both developing and fielding an array of short- and medium-range
ballistic missiles.
U.S. officials appeared conflicted over the possible Arrow transfer
when it first became public last summer, and no unified position
has emerged. The Pentagon and White House seem to view the deal
favorably, but an interagency review involving the State Department
has lasted longer than a year. There is no set date for when the
review is to be completed.
An issue highlighted by U.S. officials is how the sale of the Arrow
to a third country would square with U.S. commitments under the
voluntary Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which aims to
restrict transfers of missiles capable of delivering a 500-kilogram
warhead at least 300 kilometers. The Arrow has this capability.
The MTCR does not ban transfers of missiles, but the spirit of
the regime is that such sales should occur only rarely. Members
are expected to subject such deals to great scrutiny, weighing the
proposed export against five criteria, including whether an importing
state might use the system to deliver weapons of mass destruction
or modify it for roles beyond its original purpose.
A key White House official, however, suggested the MTCR is too
rigid. The United States must look at ways to implement the MTCR
so that it does not impair U.S. missile defense cooperation with
foreign governments, according to Robert Joseph, the senior director
for proliferation strategy, counterproliferation, and homeland defense
on the National Security Council (NSC). Joseph was speaking March
3 at a missile defense conference in Washington, D.C.
Joseph did not single out India or the Arrow system in his remarks,
and the NSC did not return calls seeking clarification. A State
Department spokesperson would not comment on Joseph’s statement.
J. D. Crouch, assistant secretary of defense for international
security policy, said at the same conference that the United States
had yet to reach a conclusion about the possible Arrow deal, but
he also downplayed fears that the transfer could be destabilizing
for South Asia or spur an arms race between India and Pakistan.
He suggested Islamabad might not view India’s acquisition of
missile defenses negatively or as a threat to its security.
But Asad Hayauddin, press attaché for the Pakistani embassy
in Washington, said in a March 13 interview that any weapons acquisition
that would alter the military status quo in South Asia would be
destabilizing to regional security. He added that India’s purchase
of missile defenses “would certainly add” to Pakistan’s
strategic concerns and that Islamabad would have to respond in some
way, possibly by building up its missile forces, to preserve its
deterrent capability.
Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha, a former director of naval research for Pakistan’s
navy, echoed Hayauddin in a March 15 interview. She described Pakistan
as “quite concerned” about a possible Indian purchase
of the Arrow and said it would “undermine Pakistan’s deterrence
capability.” Yet, she contended Pakistan would likely have
a measured response, which might include an increase in missiles,
although only “to a certain degree and no more.” Buying
its own defenses would be too expensive for Pakistan, she said.
U.S. lawmakers have largely been silent on the issue, except for
Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ). Founder of the congressional
caucus on India and Indian-Americans, Pallone wrote Secretary of
State Colin Powell a July 23, 2002, letter urging the secretary
to support the sale as a move to “solidify” defense ties
between the United States and India. Pallone noted in his letter
that he understood Powell objected to the deal while “there
is [reported] support within the Pentagon and support from Israel
to make this sale a reality.”
At a hearing last July at which senators questioned him about the
MTCR and the proposed Arrow deal, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State Vann Van Diepen warned that the United States should be aware
of what type of precedent it might set through its own exports and
actions. He suggested the United States might find it harder to
oppose arms deals it finds objectionable, such as a Russian export
of missile technology to Iran, if Washington approved similar trades
to its allies and friends.
|
