Obama scraps the centrepiece of Bush security agenda in Eastern Europe

Obama makes the road to bilateral relations a little more smoother. Photo: Jim Watson/afp

ON 17th September, President Barack Obama took a bold decision in scrapping the Bush-era plan for a missile shield to defend Eastern Europe. Obama promised a redesigned defensive system, saying it would be cheaper, quicker and more effective against the threat from Iranian missiles. The Bush-era plan had complicated ties with Russia, which objected to where the shield installations would be built. Anticipating criticism from the right that Obama was weakening America's security, he said repeatedly that this decision would provide more - not less - protection.
In its place, Obama is proceeding with sea-based system protecting southern Europe and the Middle East. The revamped sea-based system, according to the President, would be a far more effective means of protecting US interests at home and abroad from the possible threat posed by Iran.
Initial stage of Obama's alternative plan would deploy Aegis ships armed with interceptors and there would be a second phase on land in 2015, probably in Turkey.
Aegis ships also carry Tomahawk cruise missiles and submarine torpedos and rapid response gun systems. It can blow up ballistic missiles above the atmosphere. The cost of the revised programme reportedly would be $42.7 billion.
The US Defence Secretary Robert Gates (he held the same position under former President Bush) reportedly said that two important developments had prompted a reassessment. First, there had been a change in the 2006 view of the Iranian threat. The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran's short (Fateh-range 169km) and medium range ballistic missiles (Zelzal: 402 km), not from long-range missiles (the Shahab-3: 1995km), is developing more rapidly than previously projected. The second development was technological. A distributed and mobile network was preferable to a single fixed site for sensors as proposed in the Czech Republic.
The leaders of Eastern Europe, though uncomfortable with the decision, have realised that they could do nothing and accepted the change. Polish leaders hoped that the US would deploy Patriot missiles in Poland, while Czech leaders believed their security was entrenched in NATO. Strong criticism came from Republican lawmakers in the US. Putting facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic was symbolically very important for the US and NATO, according to some lawmakers. Senator McCain called the decision "seriously misguided" and said it had the potential to undermine the US's standing in Eastern Europe, former Soviet satellite countries.
The controversial US security policy in Europe in installing an anti-missile radar in the Czech Republic and missile interceptors in Poland to ward off threat from Iran's long-range missiles was not acceptable to Russia because Russia angrily criticised that the US missile defence plan was not against Iran's missile threat but posed security threat to Russia. This plan spawned misunderstanding between the two countries and stood as a stumbling block in cooperative relations with Russia.
Furthermore, Russia took certain counter-measures in response to the US missile shield. One of them was to install missiles in the Russian enclave Kaliningrad (next to Poland and Lithuania), to place there nuclear-capable T-22 strategic bomber and to equip Russia's ballistic missile arsenal with technical features allowing them to evade US missile defences. To Russia, the missile defence shield was a symbol of US' failure to take their concerns into account. Moscow saw it as an attempt to sap their deterrent against a US first strike.
In response to Obama's decision, Russia shelved its plan in Kaliningrad the next day. Russia's President said that the move was "positive." Russia's Prime Minister Vladmir Putin praised the decision to scrap the missile shield plan as "correct and brave".
The hallmark of US foreign policy under President Obama rests on three Ds: diplomacy, development and defence. He is an idealist and a pragmatic person and that is why he can sell his ideas. Political vision without ideas is simply routine administration.
President Obama has realised that Russia's cooperation is necessary because currently the Security Council has become ineffective because of Moscow's threat to veto on many issues raised by the US. The UN stalemate is a reminder that his agenda, outlined in Prague in April, was doomed without a more cooperative Russia.
There are other reasons as well and some of them deserve mentioning. First, Obama was scheduled to chair on September 24th the extraordinary extra summit at the UN for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and the US-drafted resolution on it met Russia's objections. The US found that the resolution would not be adopted and it was considered as embarrassing for the President. Second, if the momentum could be maintained Obama has a chance of support of the Senate to ratify the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). China would follow suit and the Treaty would enter into force prohibiting nuclear tests and providing a powerful legal barrier to proliferation. Third, on 5th December, the 18-year old Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is due to expire and the US and Russia are striking an arms control deal cutting deployed strategic warheads on each side to 1500. Fourth, tough sanctions could not be imposed on Iran because of Moscow and its acquiescence would also bring on board China for sanctions against Iran, if necessary.
It seems President Obama removed a big thorn in bilateral relations with Russia. In the wake of this, the NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen (former Danish Prime Minister) renewed NATO's efforts to bind Russia into a system to guard against missile attacks from Iran. We should explore the potential for linking the US, NATO and Russia into a missile-defence systems at an appropriate time.
The author is former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.