A Look at Eastern European Missile Defense

We all know that the current Russian administration doesn't like proposed missile shield in Eastern Europe. In a previous post (Former Prime Minister of Russia on the Eastern European Missile Shield), we've established that even pro-western Russian moderates such as Yegor Gaidar are "extremely worried about this [ABM] program". But what is the government's official stance on this program? In May of 2007, two proponents of this policy were called before Congress and asked to explain if the United States and Europe need a European missile defense system. Together they presented the following argument:

The world’s most threatening and unstable regimes can develop and deploy lethal nuclear arsenals and the ballistic missiles to deliver them to Europe and even the United States ... The Intelligence Community estimates that Iran could develop long-range missiles capable of reaching all of Europe and the United States by 2015 if it chooses to do so ... The missile defense system that we are proposing to place in Europe—in cooperation with Poland and the Czech Republic—would provide an extra layer of protection against possible missile attacks not only to the United States, but also to NATO allies and other European friends ... We cannot have U.S. security decoupled from that of our NATO allies. We cannot take a unilateral or isolationist approach to security.

...

The 10 interceptors we hope to field in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic would have little or no capability against Russia’s large strategic offensive force, which could overwhelm the U.S. system’s limited number of interceptors regardless of their location. In theoretical one-on-one engagements, U.S. interceptors located in Europe would have little or no capability to intercept Russian ICBMs launched at the United States as the U.S. interceptors are too slow to catch Russian ballistic missiles.

There is no reason to believe that traditional nuclear deterrence would not work both ways in relations between Europe and Iran. The real problem is that Europe is not sufficiently motivated to take military action against Iran, especially after the 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate which stated with high confidence that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons.

In addition, these plans made unilaterally with Poland and the Czech Republic because NATO was not willing to collectively sign onto the process. This unilateral action left the United States holding the bill for the cost of the system. But though the fiscal cost is significant, the diplomatic cost pales in comparison. It needlessly served to worsen US relations with Russian and led to Russia suspending its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty (-BBC News).


_______________
Full transcript of the hearing:
Do the United States and Europe need a missile defense system? : joint hearing before the Subcommittee on Europe and the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, May 3, 2007.

What is a Cold War?

After the Soviet Union had fallen, the Russian economy was in shambles, whereas the United States was the world’s only remaining superpower. Many areas of goodwill had already begun to emerge, and many believed the Cold War was over. The United States had little to fear from the new Russian government, but was this also true of Russia? Though the Warsaw Pact was had been dissolved, NATO remained, and in fact would begin expanding through old Warsaw Pact members. In recent years, nuclear arms talks would end. The United States would abandon the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, and would not only begin building a ballistic missile shield in the United States, but in Eastern Europe as well. In response, the Russian Federation withdrew from the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty. Many have asserted that this is the beginning of a new cold war. But what is a cold war? What actually makes tensions into a cold war, and is it possible to stop it?

MLK and International Justice

This article comes from IRWatch Senior Correspondent, Janelle F.

Today the US remembers and celebrates Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a man known for his profound influence on the Civil Rights Movement and its intersections with American social politics. This is also a fitting time to recall Dr. King's activism in the realm of US foreign policy and world politics, specifically in his reactions to the Vietnam War. He saw the war in Vietnam as a symptom of a greater disease, one in which people's rights were denied and their welfare jeopardized – the same disease causing the ugly symptom of social injustice in the US.

On April 4, 1967, Dr. King gave a speech to Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam at Riverside Church in New York City (the full text of the speech can be found here). He called for an end to the violence in Vietnam, but also for more than that. He called for sympathies that crossed racial, political, and national boundaries – for all people to unite in their common humanity, and allow that commonality to be the driving force in relations among nations and people.

"Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

"This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
…

"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and non-violence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition."

Through mutual respect and compassion, Dr. King believed we could achieve a greater peace and find mutual benefit. However, he also had a rather sentient vision of the alternative:

"There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit. And if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing Clergy and Laymen Concerned with committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy."

Perhaps the best way to honor the legacy of Dr. King is not simply to rejoice in the great strides that have already been taken, but to continue to push forward toward the realization of his vision of true justice, equality, and peace.

______________
Source
The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute

"Japan plans Tokyo missile shield"

Missile Shields aren't just for Eastern Europe and Alaska anymore. According to the BBC:

The Japanese military carried out their [Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)] assessment in the capital overnight.

According to a military spokesman, the two sites surveyed were Shinjuku Park, a business hub in central Tokyo, and a site in Ichigaya, not far from the Imperial Palace and key government offices.

...

PAC-3 missile defence systems have already been installed at two bases in Japan, with authorities planning an expansion to a total of 11 sites by 2011.

The Japanese government is also co-operating with the US on ship-based missile defence systems.

In December 2007, a Japanese warship successfully shot down a mock ballistic missile off Hawaii, in the first test of a system that will ultimately be installed on four destroyers.

Interesting. While Japan has more of a definable threat from North Korea than Eastern Europe from Iran, this leads me to bigger questions. Is the US actively proliferating ABM technology? Certainly seems that way.

______________
Source
BBC News - Asia Pacific, Japan plans Tokyo missile shield

Encirclement of Russia via NATO?

This perspective is from Robert Alvarez and is in interesting contrast to the previous one I posted from Peter Brooks (here). At the time, Robert Alvarez was a senior policy adviser and U.S. Secretary of Energy for National Security.

The Russian under Putin has asserted in a more authoritarian manor, none the less he enjoys a great deal of popular support... At the same time the United States has been pushing the envelope in my opinion in terms of encirclement of Russia through NATO alliances, particularly in terms of seeking to have NATO troops in Ukraine and places like that. And given the long history of Russia and its extreme sensitivity about military encirclement, these are not looked upon kindly by Russia.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)

Russia and Oil from a former senior DoD official

This is another interesting perspective from an older Diane Rehm show, this time from Peter Brooks, the former deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Bush Administration.

They [the Russians] are using energy today as Russia's Cold War Red Army, the source of mother Russia's strength.

While I agree that the Russians are in fact using oil as a significant bargaining tool, I think the tone and vocabulary he uses is as interesting as the point he was making.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)

Russia, Chechnya, Iran and the US "War on Terror"

This perspective on Russia's views of Chechnya, Iran and the US "War on Terror" from Andrew Kuchins, the director of the Russia-Eurasia program. This is from an interview from the Diane Rehm Show, this one from July 2006. He gives several interesting perspectives on some of the key issues of contention between the US and Russia.

Diane Rehm: Are there parallels between the US war on terrorism and Russia's differences with Chechnya?
Andrew Kuchins: Well it gets to the way the US and the Russians perceive the war on terrorism, and for the Russians the war on terrorism is primarily Chechnya and the northern Caucasuses, and to a secondary degree would be Central Asia and then Afghanistan, which the Russians care a lot about and that's why the Russians supported us five years ago in taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan. When we get to our military effort in Iraq which we all know the Russians opposed, and when get to Russian concerns about a military operation in Iran which they also oppose, it gets to the differences in how they perceive the war on terror. Especially on Iran, this is interesting I think, for the Russians Iran is viewed more of as a strategic partner, a geopolitical partner. The Iranians have never, to my knowledge, supported terrorist groups or terrorist activities on the territory of the Russian Federation. In fact, the Iranians worked together with the Russians in diffusing the civil war in Tajikistan back in the 1990s, they worked together of course with the Russians and even us to supply the Northern Alliance to take out the Taliban five years ago. So the Russians I think are quite wary about doing something which would associate themselves with punitive actions against Iran.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)