 |
 |
|
||
|
|
|
Letter to the Editor May 2001 By Sir Michael
Atiyah Tam Dalyell (The Scotsman, May 14) is quite right to draw attention to the important international issue of National Missile Defence and to regret the absence of any reference to it in the General Election campaign. The decision of President George W. Bush to press ahead with NMD has aroused widespread concern. It raises the danger of a new arms race. The view of the UK Government appears to be that the decision has been taken and that opposition by the UK would be ineffective and would damage the "special relationship". But this is to ignore both the complexities of American politics and the very lengthy process of developing a new weapons system. The debate will, in one form or another, continue down the years and a strong and articulate opposition from Europe (including the UK) would be a significant factor affecting the final outcome. There are many in the United States who would welcome such a stand by Europe and would not feel that it was, in any way, anti-American. Many political analysts, including George Kerevan in The Scotsman, have argued that the US decision on NMD is not aimed at the "rogue states", but at China. There is little doubt that President Bush sees China, with its rapid economic growth, as a potential rival in both political and military terms. NMD has to be seen in that light, and US policy is in danger of producing a new cold war in the Far East, with China replacing Russia as the main adversary. A new polarization of the world is being threatened. But, in such a scenario, there is no need for the countries of Europe to align themselves with the United States, as they did when facing the might of the Soviet Union. On the contrary we should do whatever we can to defuse potential conflict and help to integrate China economically and politically into the world framework. Where do our politicians stand on these great issues at the beginning of the 21st century? The electorate deserves to know. (Sir) Michael Atiyah |