Bush gives ground on arms deal

Bush and Putin point to closer co-operation over arms

By diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason

President George W Bush's determination to press ahead with elaborate anti-missile defences has provoked hostility from Russia and China and deep unease among his European allies.

They complain that doing away with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty would undermine strategic stability and might set off a new arms race.

When he took office, Mr Bush gave the impression that he'd push ahead with missile defence, come what may.

The US has successfully tested its anti-missile system

If that meant breaking the ABM treaty, too bad, though it would of course be better to revise the treaty with Russia's agreement.

At the same time, Mr Bush wanted to make further cuts in America's arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons and those would be unilateral: There was no need for a new formal treaty with the Russians.

Now though, after breaking the ice with Mr Putin at a meeting in Slovenia last month, Mr Bush has agreed that the two issues - both offensive and defensive systems - go hand in hand.

Unexpected

Mr Putin emphasised the same point repeatedly, that they would be discussed as a set.

Revealingly, he said that the understanding with the Americans on this point was unexpected, and it certainly seems that Mr Bush has given ground.

Both offensive and defensive systems go hand in hand

Negotiating both aspects as a package means that one can be set off against the other.

Russia will now have a say in American cuts in strategic missiles and by implication, in the deployment of missile defences, since Mr Bush wants to negotiate a new strategic framework for the twenty-first century.

The whole package will be subject to Russian agreement.

If a deal is made, it will of course benefit Mr Bush too.

European objections to missile defence are likely to evaporate if the Russians give their consent.

That would leave the Chinese on their own.

They fear that even limited missile defences would dent the credibility of their own small nuclear deterrent.