|
< Previous Post | Next Post >
Thursday, January 17. 2008Euro-Missile Talks Are Back, Leaving "New Europe" BehindPosted by Kyle Atwell in Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Thursday, January 17. 2008 After months of pitfalls and procrastination, talks have picked up again on the placement of US missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland – and negotiations are not getting any easier for the United States. The NYT reports:
What I find interesting is that Europe is supposed to benefit from the missile shield, and yet is now demanding more money and goodies from the US to secure European support. The harder line by the new Polish government is not a surprise, but nonetheless will increase uncertainty for a project that is already facing domestic opposition in Europe, official opposition from Russia, and is not too popular among Democrats in Congress either – all this during a US election year. Congress is wary about expanding missile defense systems based in large part on high costs and frequent let-downs in the technology. According to a recent report by the reputable non-partisan Congressional Budget Office:
The new Euro-missile sites in the Czech and Poland are alone estimated to cost roughly $18 billion between 2007-2017. I wonder if Poland's harder line signals the death of Rumsfeld’s unequivocally pro-American "New Europe"? The US appears willing to entertain Polish demands for now, with a Pentagon spokesman stating, "Because of [Poland's special relationship with the U.S.], we believe that we can overcome whatever differences may exist on this issue very quickly." However, there is definitely a notable reticence to back US missile defense plans from the new Polish government that was not found in its predecessor.
Comments (12)
Defined tags for this entry: Defense, Military, Missile Defense, Nukes, Poland, Proliferation, Russia
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Don S
- #1 - 2008-01-18 12:14 - (Reply)
I sympathize with the Pole's position, if not with all of their demands. The Poles thought they were joining a strong alliance which would stoutly defend them from the Russians, but they ended up in a crumbling alliance where the Germans and French have been making common cause with the Russians while contributing every less to the alliance. Comments ()
Kyle - Atlantic Review
- #1.1 - 2008-01-18 15:49 - (Reply)
Maybe it's not so bad being a naked Pole: Comments ()
Pat Patterson
- #2 - 2008-01-18 13:45 - (Reply)
In 2004, when it was widely reported, the US announced that they were planning to withdraw some 70,000 of the 100,000 servicemen stationed in Europe. In 2007 the US has announced that there are now 110,000 servicemen stationed in Europe though with anywhere from 25-35,000 deployed throughout the ME and some of the ex-Soviet republics. Some bases indeed may have been closed but the number of troops stationed in Europe is greater now than four years ago. In 2000 barely 70,000 servicemen were stationed in Europe down from over a quarter of a million from the previous decades. Everybody seems to talk a lot about further US drawdowns but ignore that the numbers have actually risen since a low point at the beginning of the century. Comments ()
Nomad
- #3 - 2008-01-18 15:32 - (Reply)
I wish the Pole's decided for a good once where they sit, Comments ()
Kyle - Atlantic Review
- #3.1 - 2008-01-18 15:57 - (Reply)
Hi Nomad: Comments ()
Nomad
- #4 - 2008-01-18 17:25 - (Reply)
Kyle, Comments ()
Lukasz C.
- #5 - 2008-01-18 22:21 - (Reply)
Old Europe and New Europe was a ridiculous proclamation, where did the British fit into that grouping? They were Old Europe after all, and they are and will be the biggest ally of the US for years to come. Poland will also continue to be a huge proponent of US foreign policy, but now instead of giving away the goods for free maybe successor governments will actually drive a harder bargain, that bargain is merely a fairer deal. Poland will of course become target #1 if a missile shield ever comes online, that certainly makes the US safer, but I'm sure debate will continue on whether it makes Poland or Europe any safer. Comments ()
Kinuk
- #6 - 2008-01-19 16:51 - (Reply)
Thanks for the email, Kyle...interesting article. Comments ()
Don S
- #7 - 2008-01-21 13:57 - (Reply)
"I'm tired of hearing the US refer to Poland as a partner and then treat the country as a third cousin twice removed. Being stuck next to Russia, though, we look for allies where we can find them, I guess." Comments ()
joe
- #8 - 2008-01-22 16:30 - (Reply)
I would suggest to the Poles they make a deal quick. If Hil-gal or Hussein become POTUS then missile defense is off the table for Europe. No need for a deal for something that is not going to happen. Comments ()
joe
- #9 - 2008-02-03 16:17 - (Reply)
Kind of knew this deal would get done because of the reasons stated above. Comments ()
Marek Swierczynski
- #10 - 2008-05-13 09:59 - (Reply)
A few months after the above post was relevant, the situation looks gloomier and the talks are reported to be close to a stall. The hawkish approach to the deal, adopted by the Tusk government and personally by Radek Sikorski, seems to have taken Poland nowhere nearer the agreement that satisfies both parties. The emphasis on financial and military compensations for the alleged growth of risks for Poland makes the talks very difficult and the agreement almost impossible in the last months of Bush presidency. And the future is unknown as there is no clear leader in the presidential contest in the US. Mr Tusk is quite right to demand what he thinks is needed but many say there is more at stake than just a fair deal. With the previous government it seemed that Poland’s security in the long term depends on the installation of the MD elements. Now the prevailing mood seems to be: no shield - no problem. But Mr Tusk knows - or should know - that for the opposition it would be a very strong argument if he drops the shield. It would almost certainly bury his presidential bid in 2010 and very likely outpost his government in next parliamentary elections. The internal politics as well as some strategic arguments speak in favour of the MD deal even if the real currency balance seems less attractive. Comments ()
|
Contact UsEmail Joerg Wolf and Kyle Atwell at:
ar-team AT atlanticreview.org We are available for interviews, and appreciate feedback and suggestions. Subscribe and FollowWelcome!
You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW, a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis. More about us. Follow Atlantic Review on Facebook or on Twitter. Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter. SponsorSUPPORT THIS SITEBlogrollHot TopicsClick on one of the following links to see all Atlantic Review posts about this topic in a chronological order with the latest post on top:
Afghanistan Anti-Americanism Economics Iran Iraq Merkel Polls Terrorism Click here for the full list of all topics. |
Home - About Us - Newsletter - Transatlantic Relations - US Foreign Policy - Various RSS Feeds Designed for Atlantic Review by Carl.

