New Europe: Anti-missiles vs the Re-start

Konstantin Kosachev, Chair of Russia's parliamentary committee on Foreign Affairs, analyses the current international controversy surrounding anti-missile defensive shields. Photo by BGNES

By Konstantin Kosachev

New Europe, January 22, 2010

This February, the US announced the plan to construct missile defense elements (anti-missiles) in Romania and Bulgaria, in the Black Sea water area. These systems will, supposedly, provide protection for the US and their European allies against possible Iranian threat. Russian Minister of Foreign affairs stated that the Russian Federation would like the US to clarify the reasons for such a measure. Commentary given by the US representatives does not sound too convincing per se. It failed to help disperse the atmosphere of concern, but has indeed succeeded in causing utter disappointment with this decision in Moscow. It signaled a perplexing divergence from the "re-start" attitude in Russo-American relations.?Our concern over this situation (as is over missile defense issues in general) does not always find understanding among our American and other western colleagues. For they claim that the system is going to solely serve the defensive purpose, and has limited capabilities. ?But here we have to remember how much unease is brought upon our western colleagues by the possibility of delivering equivalent S-300 Russian missile defense systems to Iran. And when missile defense systems are to be deployed in Europe, then we are offered to think of it as if it were a routine situation, which is of such small importance, that there is no need whatsoever to discuss it with Russia.?It would have been a routine situation, had we had some system of checks and balances, which were to guarantee mutual trust, and excluded risks for whomever it could be in Europe. However, such system exists only within NATO, and because of this Norway, for instance, has no reasons to be concerned over US missiles being deployed on the South of the continent.

Unease in Russia

But Russia is not a member of NATO, and we have to remember, that we are talking about armaments of a military bloc that Russia is not a part of. When security is at stake, no sensible politician or army officer is going to find spoken affirmations, especially those claiming that no weapon is aimed at his or her country sufficient. ?This is exactly why we say that we need an agreement basis for collective security in Europe. Once we have a written document on our hands, then within its framework we will be able to negotiate which missiles, missile defense systems we may or may not need in Europe. ?We initially said that – and American colleagues, as we believed, supported us (at least such an agreement was reached between Presidents Obama and Medvedev) – it is imperative to draw up a list of possible threats, and in future, should any issue arise, act within the guidelines of this list. We should act jointly and in concord with each other. We should not put the partner in a position, where mass media is going to provide the information on any considerable decision. ?The deployment of missile defense elements in Romania and Bulgaria does not look like an appropriate course of action, especially given that the possible threats are still to be agreed upon. Does the current state of events require such haste? Is there any justification for so eagerly wanting to deploy the missiles that are supposed to protect Europe from the Iranian threat before fully implementing the long-awaited re-start in our relations? ?This makes us want to ask – who are these systems going to protect? Israel? The American fleet in the Persian Gulf? These are the two principal targets for future Iranian missiles. The quite limited range of Iranian missiles is not going to take them anywhere near Romania in the nearest future (and it’s doubtful that anyone in Tehran has had such intentions before – but this can now become a possible development.) The US has a lot of possibilities to bring its armaments close to the source of the potential threat without any political complications with anyone, and without having to breach into the ever so sensitive and disputable space of European security. There are several states neighboring Iran (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Azerbaijan, etc.), which would eagerly offer their support and territory to Washington. ?And despite this all, we constantly keep hearing about Europe. Without any doubt, this attitude provokes a natural reaction from the Russian side, and creates an impression of, I would say, some carelessness in approaching issues of such grand scale.

A question of balance

It is regrettable that all of this is happening during the course of intricate talks between USA and Russia on the new START. Despite the obvious progress in this direction, not all issues have been resolved or agreed upon. The general mood of the negotiations is affecting the very course of these negotiations, their atmosphere. The important issue here is - without any exaggeration - the global security, the perspectives of a nuclear-free world, which have finally been given a tangible chance to come to life. And all of a sudden, as if it were orchestrated on the higher level, this Romano-Bulgarian missile issue emerges, creating an impression that someone was looking for a way to impede with the negotiation process. ?We understand that this process (as does the President Obama) has many critics, including powerful opponents in the US Congress and the Pentagon. It can be suggested that divulging plans to deploy missile defense elements in Romania and Bulgaria is supposed to facilitate the advance of the new START through the US Congress to some extent. There it is supposed to encounter harsh opposition, overcoming which will require additional arguments. First, there are the interests of the defense establishment lobby, which has its own reasons for the deployment of missiles in the Southern Europe. Also, according to some arguments, antimissiles pose no threat to the Russian military potential, because they were developed to counter short- and medium-range missiles, and Russia has none (however, we have not heard whether the US are only going to use this class of anti-missiles in the nearest future). References are being made to president Obama's September 2009 modified European antimissile plan, which came as a replacement for the construction of a third missile defense sector in Czech Republic and Poland. ?All of these concepts are not without some ground to them, and can become topics for discussion. It is rather unfortunate that there has not been any discussion yet. And as for the matter of anti-missile deployment in Romania and Bulgaria - the US did not use its diplomatic channels to politely inform Russia beforehand. This is something that does not correlate with the proclaimed "restart" policy, which we would want to honor in our relations with the USA and the West as a whole. ?It is necessary to understand that Russia is very concerned over such intentions coming from the US, especially in the context of general European and global security, undergoing START negotiations, and discussion of a Russian proposal for the European security treaty. Such attitude can not be seemed as a product of just military reasons, or specific Russian fears, some unhealthy ("paranoid") obsession of Moscow with missile defense (however, we have to accentuate that we are talking about the weapon systems created to counter missiles that are flying in close proximity to the borders, or even over the territory of Russia, which would, without any doubt, cause anxiety for any country: there is the aspect of the regional balance of power, which would be completely violated, were the new powerful weapons to appear near the Black Sea).?We believe that the re-start of approach to security problems should undergo some qualitative and quantitative changes. Qualitative changes would mean changes in a wide area of aspects, including changing the relationship model between the partners, and higher regard of interests of one another. As for the quantitative changes – we should discuss a much wider and complex range of issues dealing with security. While sharing the same track, one can not make substantial progress by moving unilaterally without prior discussion with the partner or partners. Such approach would only result in the unfortunate shock effect.

?Konstantin Kosachev is a Russian political leader who is the Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Foreign Affairs. A doctoral graduate of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Kosachev was an accomplished diplomat before his election to the Duma in 1999

We need your support so Novinite.com can keep delivering news and information about Bulgaria! Thank you!