3 May 2002
Denmark Debates Chinese Reaction to Missile Defense
By Jorgen Dragsdahl

An "orderly and positive dialogue" between the US and China is, according to the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, "absolutely  decisive" for Denmark's future position on missile defense.

During a three-hour debate in the Danish parliament on May 3rd,  Foreign Minister Mogens Lykketoft, a Social Democrat, repeatedly stressed the crucial significance of the Chinese reaction to a US missile defense if a new arms race is to be avoided. If one looks ten, twenty, or thirty years ahead, he said, the world is likely to have two superpowers again, and one of them will be China. Thus everybody must make "extraordinary efforts to secure a peaceful relationship between the two giants."

Greenland, a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, is likely to play a key role in an American national missile defense. A US radar facility at Thule is to be upgraded. The official Danish position, repeated during the debate, is that Denmark will not take a stand on US plans before a "precise" request is presented and the international framework for such plans is clarified.

But both Mogens Lykketoft and spokesmen for the major parties raised numerous de facto demands. If a new arms race is to be avoided, "the main perspective" in a missile defense effort must, the foreign minister said, be non-proliferation agreements and deep "agreed" cuts in strategic nuclear weapons. Lykketoft called for "an active and focused dialogue" with the so-called "rogue" states, a term he avoided, and highlighted European Union efforts to encourage a renewed dialogue between the US and North Korea.

The Danish focus on Chinese reactions is in part motivated by uncertainty over possible Russian reactions. In the US-Russian relationship, the ABM Treaty, which prohibits a national missile defense, is a key issue. Associating himself with recent remarks from the German foreign minister, Lykketoft called the Treaty "a fundamental contribution to stability" which should not be terminated unilaterally by either party. But an agreement by Moscow and Washington on modification of the Treaty is viewed by the Danish minister as a realistic possibility because a missile defense will not reduce Russian possibilities for deterrence. However, he added, with regard to China the case is different, and from the perspective of future peace and stability it is "far, far more important that the US and China do not collide."

As preparation for the parliamentary debate, the Foreign Policy Committee on April 25th held a day-long hearing on missile defense. It was dominated by gloomy assessments. While China was not invited to give an official presentation, Professor John Steinbruner from University of Maryland strongly deplored the absence of even concepts of agreement with China on limiting deployment of missile defense. He predicted a Chinese counter-reaction directed against space assets, in effect taking them hostage. Sir Timothy Garden of King's College in London found that moves towards missile defense most likely will reduce security for European countries.

The message from the invited international, independent experts were, despite their different perspectives, unequivocal: Denmark and other US allies must speak up now, and voice their concerns, if the Bush administration is to be influenced.

Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution in Washington DC was in this respect the big surprise witness. Invited as a representative of the "pro" camp, he ended up issuing the strongest calls for European pressure on the Bush administration.

"I think Europe is about to make one of the big mistakes it sometimes does," Daalder warned, referring to a "deafening silence" from European governments in the last three months. European policy, he said, is based on two wrong assumptions. One, that missile defense will not come quickly. Two, that the Bush administration will act in a co-operative framework. But the European silence has been taken by the Bush administration as a go-ahead signal for a unilateral approach: if the US takes the lead, the allies will follow.

European governments should "at the highest level," Daalder said, send a coordinated message: "We in Europe have real fundamental interests when it comes to the question of what you do with the ABM Treaty. If you think you can do to the ABM Treaty what you did to Kyoto [global warming agreements], you are wrong."

During a discussion on possible consequences if Denmark says "no" to a US request for use of Thule, Daalder went even further: Denmark should raise at the highest level with the administration that it will not under any circumstances agree. "You have the leverage, use it," he said to the Danish politicians.

At least some listened. While a move during the parliamentary debate by far-left parties for a clear stand against missile defense was rejected, almost all other parties stressed the need for a co-operative framework involving Russia and China. Even a representative of the Conservative party, Per Stig Moeller, could envision a Danish "no," although he deemed it unlikely given his trust in the Bush administration.  Also, the need for approval by the home rule government in Greenland for use of Thule was stressed. Beyond these points, parties expressed views covering a broad spectrum. The Social Democrats highlighted the need for an effort against Third World poverty to get at the roots of global instability. Opposition center and right wing parties voiced interest in a missile defense system covering Europe too. In the end, the parliament refrained from giving the government concrete directives on the substance of further dialogue with the Bush administration in which the generally skeptical views presented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be raised.

Jorgen Dragsdahl is a Danish journalist specializing on defense and security affairs.