For my first blog entry ever, I am choosing to review information contained in international newspapers/media about the US wanting to put missiles into Poland, with an interceptor base to be located in the Czech Republic. I also reviewed information from the Council of Foreign Relations and opinions from the public, posted on various US news websites.
Briefly, the US’s wish to put missiles in the area referred to as Eastern Europe, has been going on since 2006, when the subject was first brought up by Dubbya. The Czech Republic and Poland were targeted since these two nations are very close allies to the US. The missiles are being put in these areas to protect the US from “rogue attacks” from nations considered to be “enemies” of the US. The “rogue states” means Iraq. Every article I saw in the US press had “rogue states” in the text, quickly followed by Iraq. One can easily connect the dots where the US is trying to protect its behind from only one “rogue state” – Iraq. The US has similar missile sites located in Alaska, Greenland and Britain, but there is never a mention of a rogue state with those locations.
The proposed missile program consists of basing 10 interceptor missiles in northeast Poland near the Russian border with a radar facility in the Czech Republic, located southeast of Prague. The US says this shield would complete the existing US missile system that has locations in Greenland, Alaska and Britain.
Needless to say this missile program, sometimes referred to as “Son of Star Wars”, has a $3.5 billion price tag (and climbing) has wrangled the Russians, let alone the people of Poland and the Czech Republic. According to the articles that mentioned public opinion, more than 70% of residents in those two countries opposed the missile program because of fears of retaliation by Russia, and the fear that once again, foreign countries could exercise significant control over their sovereignty. A detailed explanation on how a missile shield works can be seen at this link. http://www.socyberty.com/Military/How-Missile-Shields-Work.113436
If one would only study history – even briefly Dubbya – one could easily understand those two countries’ well grounded fears. For hundreds of years, wars have been fought over and through these two countries. Both countries are now part of the European Union and NATO, who are now enjoying levels of freedom they do not want to give up.
The missile debate includes a classic he-said/she said mentality, with old style rhetoric, chest thumping and threats of retaliation. True theatre but much more frightening since it’s real.
Background
Having lived in Europe for a bit, I have seen first hand the European way of approaching potential conflict. In short, Europeans tend to think before they act, while the US acts first and thinks later, or not at all. According to Helle Dale, the director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, “there is little if any debate in Europe about the dangers posed by terrorism, weapons of mass destruction or ballistic proliferation. Europeans generally feel content and at peace with the world. However, the proliferation of ballistic-missile and nuclear technology are one of the major problems facing the 21st century world. The major powers continue to invest in their nuclear arsenals, including Russia, and are therefore, highly critical of any US missile defense plans.” It could be an old argument – why can you have these toys (missiles/nuclear arms) and I can’t?
As we know, Russia has changed dramatically since the fall of Communism in 1989. Change has not been easy. Its military arsenal has suffered greatly in quality and quantity and for two decades. It seemed that Russia had lost its “super power” status. Pride has been wounded and over the years, Russia has been rebuilding its pride. However, old Cold War memories and rhetoric haven’t faded.
Russia sees the US missile program as a threat to its sovereignty. No amount of chatter from the US is convincing the Russians that these missiles will, at some point, be pointed at them. “This system is of no use against a huge nuclear and ballistic missile arsenal such as that possessed by Russia,” said Condi Rice, (CFR, Russia’s Beef with Regional Arms Control, (7/16/07). Putin and Medvedev have referred to it as a new arms race and threatened retaliation against Poland and the Czech Republic, and anyone else who hosts missiles against Russia. US-Russian tensions stem in part from Moscow’s resurgence as a major geopolitical player buoyed by high oil prices and a growing economy. With the collapse of Communism, Russia feels that some of the arms agreements it signed was from a position of weakness, and a weakened Russia was rolled over during two rounds of NATO expansion into the old Eastern bloc territory. A stronger Russia now, regrets such conciliatory policies because they feel encircled, and the Russian bear is now growling back. Russia is upset with the pro-US and pro-European countries that used to be former Soviet satellites. http://www.cfr.org/publication/13242/russias_beef_with_regional_arms_control.html
Meanwhile, the US and Europe have been falling over themselves supporting their new NATO allies, assuming that the new members will always be staunchly pro-Europe and pro-American. In the beginning, this was true, but as the satellite countries have grown, the allies have seen that these countries have their own opinions and are willing and able to stand up for their rights and have their wishes be respected. These countries will no longer roll over for the allies. Case in point, Poland. But first…….
Czech mate/Russian position
The rhetoric surrounding this program was turned way up when last week, the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek and Condi Rice signed an agreement for Czechoslovakia to host the radar system for the missile base in Poland. Arguing “the agreement represents progress toward a more secure world”, Topolanek has opened the door for the US to have carte blanche over this radar system. No article I found mentioned anything about Czech oversight, or a check and balance type system to make sure the radar was not being used for anything except its specific intent – shoot down Iraqi rogue missiles.
Moscow proceeded to warn of a “response”, a “warning” in the Russian papers. “We are not satisfied with it, and we will consider a measured response, but we will not go hysterical over it,” said Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in the Moscow Times. He is “forced to respond” to this matter. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080710/113695372.html
Interestingly enough, only the Russian media/press mention that they have offered the US alternative, existing radar stations in Russia, but Washington said they could only be used as supplements. The US response is silent on missile options in Russia and accuses Russia of inflaming European opinion to make Europeans nervous. US officials are assuming Russia’s bellicose rhetoric is just that – rhetoric. Once again, arrogant, ignorant US government officials, mouthpieces. Don’t poke the bear!
Another tidbit only mentioned in the Russian press/media is that Moscow was disbanding other missile sites in accordance with a US-Russian Treaty signed in May 2002. But with the new agreement with the radar systems, Moscow is no longer disbanding that missile site, located in central Russia, but instead is now going to deploy advanced hypersonic missiles, which can effectively penetrate missile defense systems. Uh boy. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080710/113695372.html
Meanwhile, the Czech press has offered minimal coverage to the event, only saying that the agreement has been signed. No Czech media/papers, have gone in depth about the potential ramifications of the missile program. Prague has only admitted being “surprised” by Russia’s reaction to their signing the agreement.
One big hurdle that must be crossed with the Czechs is the ratification of the agreement by parliament, and dealing with widespread opposition to the agreement. Papers feel that the backers of the agreement in the Czech parliament do not have the votes to approve the agreement.
Only CNN mentioned this little tidbit. “Russia has proposed a joint global missile defense system that would include Russia, the US, Europe and others, but the US has been cold to the idea.” And we are surprised because?
Polish perspective
In May 2007, talks began with the Polish government about putting the 10 missiles on Polish soil. Warsaw was cooperative, if not overly eager to host the missile sites, and then president Lech Kacynski was ready to give Washington the keys to the country. But last October, elections were held in Poland and Kacynski’s party lost many parliamentary seats and a new prime minister was elected. Donald Tusk is a pro-European leader, while Kacynski is very much a nationalist. Kacynski alienated many European countries with his nationalist fervor. He made his twin brother prime minister, which only caused more problems in Poland and throughout the world.
Tusk has been adamant that the missile program is an American program, not a Polish program and Poland feels no threat from Iran. According to Time Magazine, there has been real frustration in Poland about the American declarations and the real state of Poland’s cooperation. Poland wants millions of dollars to upgrade its military and air defenses as well as a guarantee of jobs for local firms, other economic aid and guarantees of its security. This stance is different from Kacynski’s original deal. Poland is standing up for itself! The Poles are also very aware of Russia and do not want to incur Moscow’s wrath. The US has said essentially – forget it, you (Poland) is just a tool. We want your land and that’s it. Typical arrogant, ignorant US mentality by this administration. Even a brief history of Poland would let the administration know what a power keg this issue is for Poland. It has been an issue (having a potentially hostile Russian neighbor) for centuries!
Warsaw is not budging from its stance, and the political rhetoric continues on both sides. “We are talking, nothing is ruled out, we want to have this done as soon as possible, we want it to be mutual beneficial, it’s not against Russia…. etc., etc., etc..” But the big push for the US is getting this deal done before Dubbya leaves office.
US egomania
In classic Dubbya/administration (my way or the highway) policy, if the “boys” don’t get their way with Poland, they will go to Lithuania and locate the missiles there. While the Pentagon has denied talking to Lithuania about potential sites, the Lithuanian government seems to know a lot about the issue and very willing to accommodate the missiles. “No comment” is a familiar refrain. None of this has been reported in the US press/media. This information about Lithuania is coming out of the Polish and Russian press.
Reuters in Europe had a VERY interesting snippet on July 5, 2007. “Boeing would build the US missile defense systems in Poland for around $600 million if Warsaw agrees…” The head of the Pentagon’s Missile Defence Agency said in March that Boeing would be a logical choice to lead the interceptor part of the missile shield. No reason why was given that Boeing would be the logical choice, and there has been no mention in any US media about this, prior to or in the present about Boeing getting a contract. Nor has there been any mention why Boeing would be a logical choice.
UK perspective
Britain and Russia are currently experiencing strained relations, and it appears to show based on a London Times article from July 9, 2008 about the missile issue. The snarky language is obvious. The timing of the signing of the missile agreement has been seen as especially damaging to Russia due to the timing of the announcement (at the G8 summit), against a novice Russian president, intending to humiliate him on the international stage because Moscow is powerless to derail the missile program. According to the Times, unlike Putin who continually issued regular threats to target nuclear weapons against states that hosted the missiles, Medvedev has replaced aggressive rhetoric with a sense of injury. The missile agreement “offends Russia greatly”. Medvedev’s goal appears to be to string the process along, waiting for Dubbya and his neocon cronies to get out of office, because Moscow feels that a new president will kill the deal. Poland’s tough line against the US is bolstering Moscow’s confidence in this respect.
Moscow also has two more growing republics who want to declare independence, as well as Georgia and Ukraine wanting to join NATO (offers go out in December 2008). Moscow is stridently against these two issues. The growing republics are beginning to attract more attention, possibly diverting Moscow’s attention from the missile program. Meanwhile, the Times says that Medvedev has been offering pan European solutions (previously mentioned global defense system) as a potential way of working with the west as opposed to confronting it.
In conclusion it’s a classic case of where you get the news when it comes to the news you hear or read. It’s the old adage - consider the source. However, the British press seems to be much more hostile to Russia than the US press does. The bias in their reporting is obvious. Meanwhile the Czech press is essentially silent and the Polish press is presenting its issues as well as the US response, in what appears to be neutral language, but is obviously more focused on the reaction/concerns of its neighbor – Russia.
The next few months will be very interesting for all involved. Will the US stop strong arming Poland, and agree to its reasonable demands? Will Dubbya take his toys and stomp off to Lithuania because Poland and potentially the Czech public, had the nerve to say “no” to the missile system and stand up to the US? My money is on Dubbya acting like he has so many times in the past. Throwing a temper tantrum and running to Lithuania, alienating two of the US’s strong allies in central Europe.
A man from Italy appears to have said it best. “What angers me is the fact that Europe cannot find common ground on these issues and we must let the Americans and Russians decide our security.”
No comments:
Post a Comment