National Security

Strategic Misdirection

Are the latest U.S. moves on missile defense making it less safe?

Washington calls them "regional" missile defenses, but Russian and China see a strategic threat brewing.

To counter missile programs in Iran and North Korea, the United States is expanding missile defense capabilities in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.  So far, the United States has fielded short- and mid-range defensive systems against similarly limited threats. But in expectation of Iranian and North Korean missiles that can reach the United States, Washington is planning to deploy mobile, sea-based interceptors that can take out long-range missiles.

And this has Moscow and Beijing worried.

So worried, in fact, that Russia and China are questioning the viability of their strategic nuclear forces, leading Moscow to resist U.S. calls for bilateral arms reductions and motivating both countries to build new weapons to counter future defenses.

This creates a problem for the United States: by planning to counter long-range missile threats in Iran and North Korea that do not yet exist, Washington is making it more difficult to reduce threats from Russia and China that are all too real.

As part if its effort to shift defense resources to Asia, the United States is expanding missile defense cooperation with Japan, South Korea, and Australia. The Pentagon announced in August that it would field a second missile-tracking X-band radar in Japan, after deploying the first in 2006. Japan has purchased U.S. Aegis-equipped ships with Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors, as well as Patriot interceptors, early-warning radars, and command-and-control systems. The United States and Japan are co-developing the SM-3 IIA missile, which would also be deployed in Europe.

South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin and U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met in Washington on Oct. 24 and agreed to continue to cooperate on missile defense and to "enhance the interoperability" of their command-and-control systems. The U.S.-ROK partnership would reportedly include joint research on a "Korea Air and Missile Defense" system involving a new radar and Standard Missile interceptors for Aegis-equipped destroyers. Seoul is pursuing its missile defense relationship with Washington cautiously, so as not to needlessly antagonize China.

An August 23 Wall Street Journal story said that U.S. officials were evaluating sites in Southeast Asia for a third X-Band radar, possibly in the Philippines, "to create an arc that would allow the United States and its regional allies to more accurately track any ballistic missiles launched from North Korea, as well as from parts of China."

The U.S. X-band radars, know as AN/TPY-2s, would be networked with mobile missile interceptors deployed on U.S. Aegis ships at sea and with land-based interceptors in the region. In effect, the United States is pre-positioning radars that could be used to support the long-range ship-based interceptors when they would be fielded around 2020.

Beijing fears that a U.S. missile interceptor system could undermine China's strategic deterrent. China's Ministry of National Defense responded to the August radar announcement by stating that countries should avoid situations "in which one country tries to let its own state security take priority over other countries' national security." Beijing objected to the first radar in Japan in 2006.

Beijing, which is secretive about its nuclear program, is reportedly responding to U.S. moves by expanding its relatively small nuclear arsenal, working on a new mobile missile, the DF-41, and countermeasures to evade U.S. defenses. Even so, the United States has a 30-to-1 advantage over China in long-range nuclear-capable missiles.

In Europe, the United States is spending billions of dollars to deploy an array of missile interceptor systems, such as hundreds of SM-3 interceptors based on dozens of Aegis-equipped ships at sea and at two land-based sites in Romania and Poland, in four phases through 2020. NATO announced at its May summit in Chicago that the first phase of the system -- a ship with SM-3 IA interceptors in the Mediterranean and an X-band radar in Turkey -- has established an "interim capability." (Nevermind that the SM-3 IA interceptor failed a Missile Defense Agency intercept test on Oct. 25.)

Russia sees the ongoing U.S. and NATO missile defense deployments in Europe through 2020 as a threat to its strategic deterrent. In response, Moscow is resisting further bilateral reductions in nuclear stockpiles beyond the 2010 New START treaty and is planning to modernize its forces, including a new ten-warhead ICBM by 2018 optimized to penetrate missile defenses. This is an unwelcome development for U.S. security, as these fixed-silo, liquid-fueled missiles are highly vulnerable and destabilizing.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told NATO representatives Oct. 18 that Russia's response to NATO's missile defense plan "is currently mostly virtual, political and diplomatic in character, but under certain circumstances we would be forced to deliver a technical response, which I don't think you'll like."

In the Middle East, a number of states are considering buying longer-range systems, and last year the United Arab Emirates became the first country to buy the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense intermediate-range interceptor system, for $3.5 billion. Israel has an X-band radar and various short-range systems, such as Iron Dome, and this month took part in major missile defense exercises with the United States.

As more Gulf states buy U.S. missile interceptor systems, the United States will "work to promote interoperability and information sharing" among those states, according to the State Department. This aspect of the plan is similar to the one for Europe, where NATO is integrating the new, U.S.-supplied interceptor systems with existing NATO short-range interceptors and sensors.

In the future, as the United States deploys additional Navy ships with SM-3 interceptors, it could assign some of those ships to the Gulf, Asia, or NATO. U.S. mobile systems "can be relocated to adapt to changing regional threats and provide surge defense capabilities where they are most needed," Frank A. Rose, the deputy assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance, said Sept. 10 at a missile defense symposium in Berlin.

Neither Iran nor North Korea has successfully tested a long-range missile that could reach the United States. Moreover, if they did, it is not at all clear that the technologies being deployed would be effective.

For example, the SM-3 missile being deployed in Europe would seek to intercept incoming warheads while in space, or in the "midcourse" of their trajectory, where decoys or "countermeasures" must be dealt with. A September report by the National Research Council found that "there is no static answer to the question of whether a missile defense can work against countermeasures." The answer "depends on the resources expended by the offense and the defense and the knowledge each has of the other's system."

After the November elections, the next president will have a choice to make. Will the United States continue to chase potential future threats with inherently unreliable defenses, or will it instead prioritize working with Russia and China to reduce the real threats we face today? Let's hope the new administration brings a more balanced approach to U.S. missile defense policy. 

SAM YEH/AFP/Getty Images

Democracy Lab

Beware the Tyranny of the Mob

The growing insecurity of religious and ethnic minorities is one of the biggest problems arising from the Arab Spring. But much can be done to protect them.

Citizens who oust dictators often face the question: What comes next? Despotic rule leaves behind few entrenched institutions other than confessional or ethnically based ones. So, transitional countries are finding that ending autocracy frequently does not bring fundamental rights equally to all members of the public.

Ever since the Iranian Revolution of January 1979 swept a Shiite theocracy into power, contests for political change around the Middle East have taken on sectarian overtones. Ousters of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, and Hosni Mubarak, and now uprisings against Bashar al-Assad, Emir Al-Sabah al-Ahmad of Kuwait, and King Hamad al-Khalifa of Bahrain have often had the effect of pitting religious and ethnic blocks against each other.

Iraq and Syria have witnessed civil war between religious sects. In Iran and Egypt, the removal of strongmen has led to further repression of minorities. Addressing the U.N. General Assembly on 25 September, U.S. President Barack Obama urged countries to break the "cycle of sectarian violence" so political transitions can be successful.

The Shiite ayatollahs have cracked down harshly on Iranians yearning for confessional and communal rights. Sunnis (8 percent), Bahais (1.8 percent), Armenian and Assyrian Christians (0.2 percent), Sufis (0.1 percent), Zoroastrians (0.03 percent), and Jews (0.01 percent) among Iran's 75 million citizens are tarred as disloyal to the nation. Sunnis are the one religious minority with sufficient numbers and resources to challenge the dominant group. Comprising of Kurds (20 percent), Arabs (2 percent), and Baluchis (2 percent), they are responding with insurrection.

The fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003 should have marked the beginning of an Iraq in which the Shiite majority (65 percent), Sunni minority (30-32 percent), and Christian minority (3-5 percent) jointly crafted a country without tyranny. But civil war fuelled conflict between Sunni Kurds and Arabs against Shiite Arabs within the population of 31.1 million. Assyrian-Chaldean Christians were caught amid the bloodletting. Numbering 1.4 million prior to 2003, there are fewer than 500,000 Iraqi Christians left now. Thus far in Iraq's political transition, two de facto states exist--one for Sunnis of Kurdish ethnicity (20 percent) and another for Iraqis of Arab ethnicity (75 percent) which is divided between Sunnis and Shiites.

Egypt, too, is shifting from authoritarian to representative governance. It is the most populous nation in the Middle East with 83.7 million people -- mostly Sunnis (90 percent), with Copts and other Christians forming a relatively small minority (10 percent). As Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis take over power they are making intolerant demands that Christians' basic rights be curtailed. Likewise, their new government has shut down the last synagogue. Egyptian Christians and Jews are in no position to engage in insurrection, but even their occasional protests are forcefully quashed by the state's security forces.

Similarly, the struggle against Syria's Baath Party is being exploited along sectarian lines. Alawites, a minority sect within Islam, are regarded by Sunnis as linked to the Assad government's violent repressions. They and other Syrian Shiites, such as Ismailis, in turn see themselves as a minority (13 percent) in a fight for survival against a Sunni majority (74 percent) of Arab (90 percent) and Kurdish (8 percent) ethnicity. Again, Christians from the Greek Orthodox Church and its Catholic offshoot (the Melkites), Armenian and Assyrian Christians, Druze, and Jews are caught up in the civil war -- accused of supporting the Assads. So these ethnoreligious minorities are also beginning to take up arms to protect their lives, homes, businesses, and places of worship.

In Kuwait, the Shiite minority (26 percent) is challenging the ruling Sunni majority (59 percent) for a more equitable distribution of authority and resources. In Bahrain, a Sunni minority (35 percent) clings to power through the royal family despite protests for a greater share of political power from the majority Shiite population (65 percent). So these two small nations, vital to U.S. and E.U. strategy in the Persian Gulf, may be up next for political transition.

In some cases, there's a significant risk that local religious conflicts can quickly assume regional dimensions.

Iraq's administrative patchwork of a Kurdish north and northeast, Sunni center, and Shiite south has not as yet broken apart its international boundaries as Yugoslavia did. But post-Assad Syria could in a worst case scenario prove much like post-Tito Yugoslavia -- and probably with far-reaching effects on its neighbors.

Baluch separatists plan a Sunni state for parts of eastern Iran, southern Afghanistan, and southwestern Pakistan. A Pan-Baluchistan could become an al Qaeda and Taliban stronghold from whence terrorists would strike abroad due to the Quetta Shura's growing authority. Kurdish separatists plot to unite northwestern Iran, northern Syria, and eastern Turkey with their semi-independent polity in northern Iraq. The government of Turkey will certainly move to protect its national boundaries by confronting those Kurds militarily -- and Assyrian Christians would again get caught between the warring parties.

So what can temper the "tyranny of the majority," of which political observers from John Adams and Alexis de Tocqueville to John Stuart Mill have warned, in countries undergoing transition? Answers can be found in the Middle East's own history.

During the sixth century B.C., the Iranian monarch Cyrus II established governmental procedures that respected and supported religious and communal freedoms. Through incentives and deterrents he brought concord and prosperity to the Persian Empire's far-flung territories from Egypt and Israel to Iraq and Central Asia. His successors, like Darius I, funded reconstruction of the Second Temple, notwithstanding that Jews formed a very small portion of the overall population. This legacy has prompted even President Obama to echo Cyrus' policies.

Linking international legitimacy and multinational assistance for new regimes to their ongoing commitment to representative governance is one place to start. Governments that honor the rights of all citizens should benefit not just from platitudes but receive tangible support in the forms of economic, administrative, and security guarantees as they work toward stable, viable, and tolerant societies.

Egypt obtains almost $2 billion each year in military and economic aid from the United States; Iraq gets at least as much too. Post-Assad Syria is sure to request fiscal, technological, and other forms of assistance from the U.S. and E.U. Congress has attempted to link American aid to foreign governments' respecting the confessional and communal freedoms of their citizens. But to date U.S. administrations have failed to enforce those requirements. Letting recipient governments off the hook sends the message that the West's words and deeds do not square up.

So long as sectarian and communal strife are tolerated, stability and prosperity will continue to elude post-revolutionary nations. Little will be gained from having pushed out dictators and from pouring in billions of dollars of foreign aid. Those nations' leaders must be convinced by both carrot and stick that only representative governments which unite citizens and treat all of them equally and judiciously, irrespective of creed and culture, will be supported.

Nor should aid be handouts which can be squandered by newly-elected leaders. Rather, at least part of inflowing resources must be directed toward civil society restoration and reconstruction programs. Those programs can provide constitutional and legal frameworks, administrative know-how, and personnel training necessary to establish, implement, and sustain religious and ethnic harmony in nations where problems were hitherto repressed rather than resolved.

Pressuring those countries, and others like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to excise negative representations of minorities still commonplace in their school textbooks is necessary as well. After all, how can tolerance be built when children are taught to hate everyone not of their creed and background?

Conversely, groups and individuals who violate religious and communal rights on national levels must be brought to justice. The International Criminal Tribunal's ruling relating to Bosnia, the International Criminal Court's decisions on Liberia, and the International Criminal Tribunal's actions on Rwanda have set precedents applicable elsewhere. The U.N.'s Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights needs to be strengthened as well, from largely observing and reporting to being capable of intervening to enforce compliance with the world's values.

The U.S. Congress' Syria Human Rights Accountability Act can serve as a model for additional international and national measures to ensure that confessional and ethnic freedoms are respected. In the case of Iran, sanctions currently take aim only at Tehran's nuclear obfuscation and support of terrorism. Including rights violations within those sanctions' scope and blacklisting Iranian leaders who discriminate against other creeds and groups would add to the pressure they are under to change their derelict ways.

Ultimately, citizens and emerging leaders in nations casting off totalitarianism's yoke need to be convinced of the distinct advantages of not trading "the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob." Only then will the grip of intolerance be broken and political changes produce nations that are embraced by all citizens and welcomed as responsible partners by the global community.

AFP/Getty Images