Return of U.S. Unilateralism 

Editorial / SF Chronicle 14dec01 

TO THE REST of the world, the United States seems determined to pursue a policy of unilateralism. Last week, the Senate voted to keep American soldiers from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed International Criminal Court in The Hague. At the same time, American officials proposed suspending talks to strengthen the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. 

Now, in a move that has surprised and disturbed European allies, the Bush administration has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the core agreement that stemmed the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. 

There are many good reasons why Secretary of State Colin Powell, among others, tried to discourage President Bush from abrogating the treaty. Whether an anti-ballistic missile system would ever work has always been questionable. The huge cost, which could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars, has created considerable opposition. Many foreign leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, have warned that an anti-ballistic missile program will accelerate a global nuclear arms race. Critics also worry that American credibility -- its willingness to honor international treaties -- will be damaged. 

Finally, there is the question: Was it necessary? If you are Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the answer is an unequivocal "yes." An anti- ballistic missile system, as he wrote in a report to Congress just one year ago, is the necessary first step toward militarizing outer space, itself a violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. In Rumsfeld's view, seizing the high ground in space is America's most important military goal in the new century. 

After Sept. 11, however, it's hard to imagine that most Americans view intercontinental ballistic missiles as the threat that most endangers the country's safety and security.