Posted by Kyle Atwell in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Friday, August 15. 2008
From the New York Times:
The United States and Poland reached a long-stalled deal on Thursday to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory, in the strongest reaction so far to Russia’s military operation in Georgia.
Russia reacted angrily, saying that the move would worsen relations with the United States that have already been strained severely in the week since Russian troops entered separatist enclaves in Georgia, a close American ally.
I wonder how far Russia-West relations will spiral? We may continue to see a tit-for-tat exchange that has real consequences on the institutions and defense postures that govern these delicate relations. From EU Observer:
The US missile deal had an instant impact on already fragile Polish-Russian relations, with Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, cancelling a scheduled trip to Warsaw in September as soon as media reported the initialling ceremony would take place.
"It is this kind of agreement, not the differences between the US and Russia over South Ossetia, which could lead to a real rise in the tension in Russian-American relations," the Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee chairman, Konstantin Kosachev, told Interfax.
The US-Russia deal "cannot go unpunished" Russian general, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said. "Poland, by deploying [the missiles] is exposing itself to a strike - 100 percent."
See also from Atlantic Review: * Georgia Conflict Gives Boost to European Missile Defense Talks * Euro-Missile Talks Are Back, Leaving "New Europe" Behind
Posted 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:
The new [Polish] government apparently intends to press the United States to pay for creating, maintaining and protecting the system and to modernize Poland’s air defense capacities by providing Patriot missiles. “The new Polish government is prepared to drive a hard bargain because much is at stake if this system goes ahead,” said Tomas Valasek, director of defense at the Center for European Reform, an independent research agency in London . “Poland wants security guarantees from the U.S. since it is not convinced NATO would provide that guarantee. This means the U.S. putting boots on the ground in Poland but also helping Poland to upgrade its air defenses.”
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:
Carrying out current plans would cause total investment costs for missile defenses to peak in 2016 at about $15 billion [per year] (excluding cost risk), CBO projects, and then decrease, as systems finished the procurement phase and became operational. This peak occurs about three years later than that projected by CBO in October 2005 because of delays in several major programs, as discussed below. If cost risk is taken into account, DoD’s projected investment needs for missile defenses might be about $3 billion higher each year.
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.
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
German Politics, US Foreign Policy on Sunday, September 30. 2007
Chancellor Merkel (CDU) welcomed President Bush's invitation to the world's 16 worst polluters for climate talks, despite his continuing opposition to mandatory targets on global warming. German Foreign Minister Steinmeier (SPD), however, thinks that it would be more productive to negotiate with individual US states rather than with the US federal government. He recently met with Governor Schwarzenegger, see Casey Butterfield's op-ed "For Transatlantic Future, Look Beyond Heads of State" in Atlantic Community.
And Germany's Environment Minister Gabriel (SPD) got real angry with Chancellor Merkel's and President Bush's proposal to expand nuclear energy to fight climate change. He is quoted by DW World:
First you urge people to expand nuclear energy and then you send in NATO to bomb the nuclear power plants because they did the wrong thing -- that isn't particularly intelligent politics.
Well, that is quite a populistic statement by the former SPD commissioner for pop-culture. After all, the IAEA found indications that Iran's nuclear program is not for civilian use only. Besides, it is very unlikely that NATO would agree to bomb Iran.
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Quotes, US Domestic and Cultural Issues, US Foreign Policy on Wednesday, September 19. 2007
John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said according to Yahoo! News:
"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." Totally unrelated: Gainesville Sun reports about a shrewed journalism student and the incompetent and brutal security service at the University of Florida. Many US universities are better than German universities, but here students don't get tasered, not even obnoxious self-promoters.
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
US Foreign Policy on Saturday, September 8. 2007
North Korea agreed to relinquish its nuclear programs. One has to be cautious with all North Korean announcements, but this deal seems to be more promising than any agreement reached in the past.
The Washington Post reports that Pyongyang has invited nuclear experts from the United States, China and Russia into North Korea to survey and recommend ways of disabling all of its atomic facilities by the end of the year. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, who has led the negotiations for many years, called the overture "another significant step toward the de-nuclearization" of the Korean peninsula. He said it was the first time a team of international nuclear experts had been invited into the country and pointed out that there are many different ways to disable a nuclear facility so that it would be extremely difficult to bring it back on line: "You can drill a hole in the side of a reactor. You can fill it with cement," he said. "You can do various things, but it helps if you have a site survey and have a look at the reactor first."
The German press is not celebrating the agreement, but the US press is not doing that either, I believe. Good news don't sell very well. Besides, it's good to be skeptical about North Korean promises. It might be too early for celebrations. I just think that President Bush and his administration deserve some praise for their work on North Korea, which was (is) a danger for the entire world. International politics is about much more than just Iraq and Guantanamo.
Blake Hounshell includes North Korea in his FP Passport list of "the top ten things Bush and his team have gotten right."
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Sunday, July 15. 2007
Nuclear inspection documents indicate that the U.S. Air Force may have permanently removed its nukes from Ramstein. This would mean that Germany’s contribution to NATO's nuclear mission now is reduced to Büchel Air Base. The Atlantic Review's long-time reader and friend Marian has recommended an excellent article by Hans M. Kristensen in the Strategic Security Blog by the Federation of American Scientists. Quote on "Germany's Nuclear Decline" and the prospect of throwing NATO's principle of nuclear burdensharing into disarray: A poll published by Der Spiegel in 2005 revealed an overwhelming support across the political spectrum for a complete withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Germany. The German government said in May 2005 that it would raise the issue of continued deployment within NATO, but officials later told Der Spiegel that the government had changed its mind. Yet the withdrawal from Ramstein indicates that the government has been more proactive than thought or that the Bush administration “got the message” and decided not to return the weapons. The withdrawal reduces Germany from the status of a major nuclear host nation to one on par with Belgium and the Netherlands, both of which also only have one nuclear base. The German government can now safely decide to follow Greece, which in 2001 unilaterally left NATO’s nuclear club. This in turn would open the possibility that Belgium (and likely also the Netherlands) will follow suit, essentially throwing NATO’s long-held principle of nuclear burdensharing into disarray. Mr Kristensen also points out that "Despite the apparent reduction, NATO's Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) as recently as June 15, 2007, reaffirmed the importance of deploying U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe." Personal comment: We need to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our defense planning, if we want to convince Iran and other countries to give up their assumed nuclear weapons programs. Thus the removal of some US nukes from Germany is a good step.
RELATED, sort of: "Five more U.S. Army sites in Germany will be closed through 2009 as part of a wider effort to realign the military's overseas structure, the U.S. Defense Department said Wednesday." writes The International Herald Tribune.
|
Latest Comments
only t happens that some believe in a godveal
Don S about Financial Crisis: "Trans-Atlantic Sniping"
Indeed yes, SC. Subtley and natural modesty precludes one from pointing out that the [...]
Don S about FT: "Speed of European Response Leaves US Trailing"
My there seems to be SUCH a lot of distrust in Deutschland! Distrust of Poland, [...]
SC about Financial Crisis: "Trans-Atlantic Sniping"
Swift's quote couldn't be more appropriate, and was certainly close to mind while [...]
SC about FT: "Speed of European Response Leaves US Trailing"
Hmmm . . . do I detect a goldbug among us?
Don S about FT: "Speed of European Response Leaves US Trailing"
Thnks for the link, SC. I had understood that the European bailout fund had been [...]