US’s anti-missile shields in Europe

America’s defense plans suddenly look a lot less cowardly than they did last year when it was announced that the anti-missile plans in Poland and the Czech Republic would not go through after all. It seems Obama was serious when he stressed his rejection of the choice between ideals and safety, as plans have been announced to place anti-missile defense shields in Poland and Romania, with a possible additional spot in Bulgaria. More strain, then, on the already plagued relation between Russia and the US, despite the fact that the official aim is guarding Europe for the Iranian and North-Korean threats.

It was clear that the global heavyweight had no intention of leaving its NATO allies completely unprotected, as plans on the drawing boards involved defense systems relying on ships in the Baltic Sea. Not many expected a program extension, however, that would ensure the building of additional anti-missile bases in Poland and Romania by 2015. The latter might get one on a smaller scale, involving two short-to-medium-range interceptors, but the agreement -propelled by US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher- probably surprised the Americans as much as the rest of the world. Not because everyone was convinced that Romania’s loyalty was reserved for the Kremlin, but because their willingness for swift cooperation was such that matters were settled within weeks. Parliamentary approval is now the last step that could block this deal, but few expected this to cause problems.

After Bush, with his annoying way of practicing international politics, Obama was a relief with his more relativistic and pragmatic approaches. Accusations of ‘going too soft’ seemed to have reached him now too, as he clearly steers into a bumpy road by getting the US closer to Russia in a way that no one in the Kremlin can appreciate. In a futile attempt to do undo some public relation damage, Romania’s president Traian Basescu’s made it actually even more obvious with his words of wisdom:

“The new system is not against Russia. I want to categorically stress this, Romani does not host a system against Russia, but against other threats” (Source: Al-Jazeera).

The question is not whether or not he is sincere; the question is whether anyone in the former communist command centre will see this is as words of comfort or words of confirmation. The old American defense plans lead to a lot of Russian resistance by imposing serious limits to Russia’s policy of ‘nuclear deterrence’, or indeed they just didn’t like the thought of having America’s fists so close to home-land.

In practice Russian reasons are misguided, both politically and maybe historically. As we’re talking about defense anti-missile shields, aimed at securing NATO-members from mainly Iran’s potential weaponry, there is no threat to the state itself. The only thing it potentially cannot do is attack Europe. The Bulgarian anti-missiles at least would not be able to intercept Russian missiles crossing the Arctic, as they are both slower and have lesser reach than those proposed by Bush. Even if the same could not be said of those to be stationed in Poland, America still has anti-missile defense systems waiting to do their masters biding on their own soil.

The political game is obvious: A cold-war relic, they just do not want this -what they see as sign of-American influences anywhere near their borderlines. Partly because they claim to have an historical agreement on their side, dating back to and making possible the German reunification, that forbids stationing bases in ex-communist states in Eastern Europe.  If true, it turns this policy into a clear violation. The Americans vehemently keep denying ever such an agreement was made.

To make matters worse, Bulgaria seems disappointed to have been passed: They too, seemed hopeful for a deal. And why shouldn’t they? No one buys the shocks of politicians, as they at least could have seen it coming. A missile base might display the American flag, but it will surely be a magnificent stimulus to local economies by demand for labor, supplies, services and, maybe, enduring profitable knowledge?

There is another, not yet here mentioned, possible reason as to why America decided to go into talks with Romania. It is actually a persuasive one as well. For quite some time the West has patiently been negotiating with Iran to try and get it to open up their agenda by letting in foreign officials who could check and report about Iran’s nuclear facilities and goals. It has been a pain; that much is obvious. If it weren’t for Russia and China, economic sanctions would have happened long ago. The latter is a stubborn on: China turns a blind eye to any misdoings, preferring not to interfere with any country’s internal affairs, thereby enabling it to usurp as much financial profit as it can. Russia, however, does care about foreign politics and its sphere of influence. By starting talks with Romania, something of which the Kremlin was well aware, the Americans hoped to drag Russia along in imposing sanctions on Iran, thereby making the anti-missile policy superfluous for its current purpose. That has failed. Russia did not take the bite, if it even was one.

It won’t make a difference anymore, however. Arguments from Russia’s side speak of pride, not of reason. With  a changing political and military scene worldwide, it might even be a prudent decision to take some precautions on safety, though it does strike as odd that it is the US carrying the burden again, not the ‘self baptized new world leaders from Europe’.