THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY
May 25, 1994
The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty is a fundamental element
of U.S. arms control policy. This fact sheet reviews the basic
purposes of the ABM Treaty, describes recent ABM Treaty developments,
and lists the central elements of the Clinton Administration's approach
to the ABM Treaty.
President Clinton is strongly committed to the viability of the ABM
Treaty. Efforts on the part of this Administration to reaffirm the
significance of the Treaty are described below. First, however, it is
important to recall the basic framework of the Treaty.
Basic Framework of the ABM D Treaty
The ABM Treaty, which was signed in 1972 by the United States and the
Soviet Union, prohibits deployment of a nationwide defense against
strategic ballistic missile attack. In the Treaty, the United States
and the Soviet Union agreed that each may have two precisely limited
ABM deployment areas (later limited by mutual agreement to one): to
protect its capital or to protect an ICBM launch area.
To promote the objectives and implementation of the Treaty, the Parties
established the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC), which meets at
least twice a year. Also the terms of the Treaty specify that a review
of the Treaty shall be conducted every five years.
In 1974, the Parties to the Treaty agreed by means of a Protocol to
reduce the number of permitted ABM deployment areas to one for each
side. The Soviet Union chose to maintain (and Russia continues to
maintain) an ABM defense of its national capital, Moscow. The
United States chose-Lose to complete its Safeguard ABM system designed
to defend its ICBM silo launcher area near Grand Forks, North Dakota;
however, this system was operational for a very short time and has been
inactive since 1976.
Recent ABM Treaty Developments
In 1993, the Clinton Administration conducted a review of U.S. policy
towards Ballistic Missile Defense and the Future of the ABM Treaty The
Administration made a determination that the "traditional" or "narrow"
interpretation of the Treaty is the correct one. The Administration
therefore reaffirmed that the ABM Treaty prohibits the development,
testing, and deployment of sea-based, air-based, space-based, and
mobile land-based ABM systems and components without regard to the
technology utilized.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the question of treaty
succession arose. The United States has made clear its position that
it is willing to accept as Treaty Parties any of the New Independent
States (NIS) that want to be Party to the Treaty.
At the same time, the growing threat posed by theater ballistic
missiles, and the need to combine effective protection against such
threats while avoiding development of an ABM capability, has prompted
the U.S. to propose that the demarcation between ABM and non-ABM
defenses be clarified. The ABM Treaty itself does not provide clear
guidance on this question. This clarification is being negotiated in
the Treaty's implementing forum, the Standing Consultative Commission.
The Fourth Review of the ABM Treaty
During the regular five-year ABM Treaty Review that took place from
September 27 October 1, 1993, in Geneva, the United States explored the
issues of ABM/non-ABM demarcation and succession with Russia and the
other participating states, Ukraine and Belarus. The United States was
reassured during this review that other states shared the view of the
Treaty's principal obligations and of the need to strengthen the
Treaty. In the Joint Communique that was adopted at the Treaty Review,
the participating states concluded that:
Commitment to the ABM Treaty was reaffirmed and it was agreed that
maintaining the viability of the Treaty in view of political and
technological changes remains important. The delegations at the
Review advocated continued efforts to strengthen the ABM Treaty
The Standing Consultative Commission (SCC)
In the past, many issues related to theater and strategic defenses have
been vigorously debated within a number of different fora, including
the Standing Consultative Commission. The Standing Consultative
Commission, established by the ABM Treaty, remains the forum for
negotiation of and agreement on ABM Treaty issues. The United States
and Russia, along with other potential successor states, are working
together to develop an effective ABM Treaty regime that will provide
for multilateral succession to the ABM Treaty, as well as clarify the
dividing line between ABM and non-ABM defenses.
At recent sessions of the SCC, which were held in Geneva from November
29 - December 17, 1993, January 24 - February 4, 1994, and March 21 -
April 21, 1994, the United States presented proposals designed to
preserve the viability of the Treaty in light of the political and
technological circumstances of the present day The other participating
delegations have also introduced their own positions and ideas.
Despite some differences of view, the negotiations have demonstrated
that there exists a significant degree of commonality in the approach
to theater missile defense among SCC participants. There is general
agreement (1) that the threat of ballistic missile proliferation is
real; (2) that there is a shared interest in being able to defend
against this threat; and (3) that the ABM Treaty must be clarified
to allow for the fielding of adequate theater missile defenses.
The Clinton Administration's ABM Policy
The central points of the Administration's ABM policy are as follows:
President Clinton has reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to the ABM Treaty.
The Administration considers it indispensable to stability, to the
START I and START II reductions, and to longer-term reductions in
strategic offensive arms.
The Clinton Administration has reaffirmed the "narrow" or "traditional"
interpretation of the ABM Treaty as the correct interpretation, i.e.,
the ABM Treaty prohibits the development, testing, and deployment of
sea-based, airbased, space-based, and mobile land-based ABM systems and
components without regard to the technology utilized.
The Administration has withdrawn the broad revisions to the Treaty
previously proposed in the SCC which were intended to permit expanded
deployment of strategic ABM defenses.
The Administration has recognized the need to specify a dividing line
between ABM systems limited by the Treaty and non-ABM systems. When
the Treaty was negotiated, both parties understood that this
demarcation was left undefined. The time has come to define it. This
will be accomplished by agreement in the SCC, not unilaterally. How
the final agreement is formalized, as a legal matter, must properly
await the outcome of the negotiations. Finally, the President has
directed the Administration to consult closely with Congress on these
issues.
CHRONOLOGY
July 13, 1993: Narrow Interpretation of the ABM Treaty Endorsed by the
Clinton Administration
On July 13,1993, Thomas Graham, Jr., Acting Director of
the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency provided
Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI), Chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, with the Clinton
Administration's reaffirmation of the "narrow" or
"traditional" interpretation of the ABM Treaty: the ABM
Treaty prohibits the development, testing, and deployment
of Sea-based, air-based, space-based, and mobile land-based
ABM systems and components without regard to the technology
utilized.
September/October 1993: Fourth Review of the ABM Treaty
The Fourth Review of the ABM Treaty, held between September 27
and October 1 of 1993, reaffirmed the participants' commitment
to the ABM Treaty and advocated efforts to strengthen the
Treaty.
December 1993: U.S. Decision on ABM Treaty Succession
The Clinton Administration announced its acceptance of
multilateralization of the ABM Treaty and directed that
negotiations begin on procedures to implement a multilateral
succession.
December 1993: U.S. Position on Theater Missile Defense
The Clinton Administration announced its goal to seek a clear,
negotiated, demarcation between ABM and non-ABM systems in
order to clarify the ABM Treaty provisions.
November 29 - December 17,1993; January 24 - February 4,1994; and
March 21 April 21,1994:
Sessions of the Standing Consultative Commission were held in
Geneva, Switzerland, where Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and the
United States discussed proposals to provide for multilateral
succession to the ABM Treaty and to clarify the demarcation
between ABM systems limited by the Treaty and non-ABM systems.