“All the NewsrnUnfit to Print” igns^ of tJje tlimesirnVol. 2 No. 6 June 2000rnA decade after the ostensible end of thernCold War, we are witnessing the emergencernof anti-Americanism in placesrnwhere it had never existed before—notably,rnamong the peoples of Eastern Europernand the Balkans. Secretary of StaternMadeleine Albright and Bill Clinton’srnmisnamed “national security team” havernsucceeded where Stalin, Khrushchev, andrnBrezhnev failed.rn”If we have to use force, it is becausernwe are America,” says Mrs. Albright. “Wernare the indispensable nation. We standrntall. We see farther into the future.” “NowrnI count myself an American patriot,” PatrnBuchanan responds, “but if this Beltwayrnbraggadocio has begun to grate on me,rnhow must it grate upon the Europeans,rnRussians, and peoples subject to our sanctions?”rnThe answer is that it is beginning torngrate even on America’s usually obedientrnclients, and the immediate cause is thernproposed National Missile Defense system.rnVladimir Yakovlev, commander ofrnRussia’s strategic missile forces, says thernU.S. plan would trigger a new Cold Warrnaims race. Sha Zukang, director of amisrncontrol for China’s Foreign Ministry,rnwarns that rewriting the ABM Treaty “willrntip the global balance, trigger a new armsrnrace and jeopardize world and regionalrnstability.” America’s European partnersrnare equally unhappy with the project: thernFrench defense minister and the Britishrnforeign secretary have both warned Washingtonrnagainst such a unilateral move.rnNow even Canada is proving reluctant tornjoin. Writing in the Toronto Globe andrnMail, Rick Salutin suggested that, far fromrnproviding protection against “rogue nations,”rnAmerica is the ultimate “rogue”rn(April 7);rnThe NMD i t s e l f is a kind ofrnrogue action since, as even thernUnited States admits, recentrndisarmament t r e a t i e s will havernto be suspended or canceled ifrni t goes ahead.rnNot only does the U.S. government actrnlike a rogue state, says the Canadian commentator,rnit has adopted that mindset:rnI t ‘ s touching to see Canadiansrn[argue] against joining thernNMD with sober reasons aboutrnundermining t r e a t i e s or thernf u t i l e science of anti-missilernumbrellas or how the real dangerrnl i e s in toting a nuclearrnbomb into the United States inrna knapsack. I t ‘ s as if yournhave a psycho in your neighbourhoodrnwho b u l l i e s everybodyrnbecause h e ‘ s paranoid andrngrandiose, then he s t a r t srnplacing cannons around hisrnhouse and you earnestly arguernabout whether to help him orrnt r y to dissuade him, when a l lrnalong you’re simply t e r r i f i edrnof the guy. What we have hererni s a world in denial.rnOnly three days later, the Globe andrnMail published an editorial sharply criticalrnof NMD. It concluded on a note of exasperation:rnCanada has a dilemma: It canrndeny support to a major ally,rnor embrace a project that willrnweaken or destroy the ABMrnTreaty and outrage the otherrnnuclear powers while doingrnl i t t l e if anything to counter arnrogue threat. If pushed into arncorner, Ottawa should denyrnsupport.rnThe reaction from Washington was justrnwhat one might expect. Deputy DefensernSecretary John Hamre has accused Canadarnof “a time-frozen perspective that goesrnback 15 years” (because it resi.sts reopeningrnthe ABM Treaty) and hinted that thernUnited States and Canada were “at an importantrnpivot point” in their relationship,rnrevolving “around the issue of nationalrnmissile defense.” NMD is evidently notrnmeant to be an offer America’s friendsrnhave the option to refuse.rnABM is not the only treaty that hasrnbeen violated by the Clinton administration.rnIn May 1996, the United States beganrna search for alternatives to antipersonnelrnland mines so that the U.S. militaryrncould completely eliminate their use, thusrnpermitting America to join the 1997 MinernBan Treaty (Ottawa Convention). Washingtonrnloudly demanded a total ban onrnland mines. But according to HumanrnRights Watch, a founder of the InternationalrnCampaign to Ban Landmines, andrnthe 1997 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, thern”new” mine about to be added to thernAmerican arsenal is no better than the oldrn(www.hrw.org/press/2000/04/alternatives.rnhtm):rnThe prototype replacement systemrnfor “d’jmb” (non-self-destructing)rnmines has a featurernthat allows the weapon to bernvictim-activated. The Americanrnsoldier would no longer selrne c t the target or control thernweapon; instead the weaponrnwould detonate i t s e l f . Thisrnfeature, called the b a t t l e -rnfield-override-system, turnsrnthe weapon into precisely therntype of weapon the U.S. hasrnsaid for years must be bannedrnworldwide.rnThere is nothing wrong with Americarndeciding to build anti-missile defensesrnand to maintain mines in its arsenal—ifrndoing so is in the interest of its securityrnand if the decision is the result of a comprehensiverndebate, not of arms manufacturers’rnlobbying. But we shouldn’t signrntreaties promising that we are not goingrnto do it, and then do it anyway. Such an attitudernis not only immoral, it is dangerous:rnIt undemiines this country’s nationalrnsecurity by promoting international lawlessness.rnIt reflects the general erosion ofrnthe rule of law under the Clinton presidency.rnThe illegality and immorality of the warrnin Kosovo was a theme elaborated by numerousrnforeign editorialists as the anniversaryrnof the war approached, includingrnMichael Gove of the London Timesrn(March 14):rn22/CHRONICLESrnrnrn