Now that the George W. Bush administration has been entrusted by the slimmest majority of popular vote to run Washington and the Pentagon for the next four years, separating fact from fiction by opponents of the Republicans is critical to maintaining popular check, such as is possible, on White House activities. Many of Bush's initiatives have either been misunderstood or approached with fear. One such is the controversial missile defense program, quietly backed in Ottawa by the Martin Liberals, vocally supported in Canberra by the popular Howard government, and clamorously questioned by the Kremlin's Generals.
The US, as keystone member of NATO has used alliance member territory in the deployment of air policing infrastructure; NORAD is but one example of how the American military behemoth utilizes another sovereign partner nation's land for missile defense bases. Estonia, as newly minted NATO member benefits from such infrastructure. On the flip side of the coin, Russian reaction to any American anti-missile deployment that the Kremlin perceives as a threat will be voiced most strongly in Russia's so-called “near abroad”.
The nuclear nightmares of the Cold War era have faded. Yet North Korea and Iran are still, according to many defense analysts, doing their utmost to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities. As thus the Americans have visible and present dangers to trot out whenever their anti-missile defense system being deployed outside US territory is questioned.
One such place is the United Kingdom. The Pentagon's plan to deploy American PLV/EKV anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) at Fylingdales base in North Yorkshire as part of the US NMD (nuclear missile deterrent) system has received Tony Blair's blessing. Combined with existing US EWR (early warning radar) stations elsewhere in Britain as well as in Greenland, Norway, Lithuania, and Estonia. The Fylingdales base has the capability to intercept Russian missiles launched from the Archangel region, where Russia's Plesetsk space center is located. NATO bases in Poland and the Czech Republic are also to be equipped with these ABMs.
Russian Defense Ministry officials have been voicing heightened alarums ever since the enlargement of NATO. The latest spin is that the American anti-missiles - for that is what they are, weapons of defense, not offence - threaten the stability of Europe. The argument about Pyongyang's and Teheran's plans as presented by the Pentagon does not apply here, the Kremlin argues. And indeed, most defense analysts seem to concur. Although there is an increasing threat to world stability emanating form North Korea and Iran, they are still not in the nuclear equation. Unless Russian weaponry somehow surfaces in these countries, missiles that can fly from the Korean peninsula or the Iranian plateau to America have yet to be acquired or developed there. Thus the American deployment of NMDs in Europe can only be seen as a directed against Russia, argue the Generals.
RIA-Novosti, along with Interfax, the official Russian press agencies that have for all intents and purposes replaced the Communist era TASS regularly give voice to such concerns. NATO in turn responds in kind, although in hardly the same language.
An Interfax release of November 4th carried an interview with NATO spokesman James Appathurai, reflecting on the official stance of NATO that the defense organization will not deploy military bases or nuclear weapons in the Baltics. It appears, according to Appathurai, that common misperceptions are fuelling reactions.
Appathurai stated that NATO is not about to deploy additional military material in Lithuania. Confusion in Russia has been generated by the fact that steps are being taken in the Baltics in connection with NATO's "air policing" mission. The Alliance spokesman notes that air policing is a routine peacetime activity designed to ensure the security and orderly use of military and commercial airspace. It goes without saying that most countries in Europe, including Russia, conduct this activity.
Appathurai pointed out that the Baltic nations are sovereign countries, free to co-ordinate their defense agreements with their NATO partners. Indeed, NATO has of necessity been completely transparent in this era of air terrorism with Russia. Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, NATO's Secretary General has in fact briefed Russia's foreign Ministry on all significant aspects of the air policing missions that commenced last March. The Kremlin should be aware of all infrastructure works in the Baltics; as thing stand Foreign Minister Lavrov has been provided with a detailed summary of all work taken since missions commenced. The Vienna Document allows Russian observers to take advantage of all of the inherent security and confidence-building measures outlined in NATO's long term plans.
Russia may be reacting to the fact that under the terms of the Treaty of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) permanent bases as well as the temporary ones located in Lithuania are accountable. Russia, while claiming that the Baltic nations are not adhering to the CFE ground rules is itself remiss on its own territory.
The main issue that seems to concern the Russians the most is perceived NATO plans to deploy nuclear weapons in the Baltics. Appathurai responded by reiterating that since 1997 the member States of NATO have "no intention, no plan, and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members.”
When, in theory, present policies of NATO and the US are guided by working towards confidence and security-building measures in the nuclear area it needs to be asked, why the Russians themselves are not inspiring confidence. Mutual trust among international partners, especially Russia and the USA is key to avoiding missteps.
The air policing missions, establishment of bases in the UK, building on existing infrastructure should be seen not as moves towards escalation but, rather steps taken to ensure that the fragile web of international partnerships based on deterrence, avoidance of global warfare.
It remains typical that Russia should voice one view when attempting to gain membership to various international alphabet organizations, while maintaining another in defense matters, one that can only be seen as a policy of veiled belligerence.
Leader: Missing the missile point
Archived Articles | 12 Nov 2004 | EWR
Archived Articles
TRENDING
