By Michael Wyganowski
The shift in the Obama administration's policy suggesting a freeze in deployment of the ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic has rekindled the debate in the two Central European countries about their future security relations with the United States.
Proponents claim that the suspension of the deployment, together with Obama's attempt to press the "reset button" in U.S.-Russian relations, undermines the security of the region. Opponents suggest that the decision on whether to base elements of a missile defense shield in Central Europe is an internal U.S. matter, and that abandoning the Bush policy could in fact enhance stability in this part of Europe by eliminating a thorny issue in relations with Russia. Moreover, even though the Polish and Czech governments signed on to the plan, neither the Polish nor the Czech parliament has yet to ratify the agreement, and popular opinion is strongly opposed.
It is becoming more and more obvious that Washington has changed its mind about missile defense in Europe. Democrats were never enthusiastic about missile defense in general and particularly disliked the concept of a site in Central Europe. Early on the Obama administration diplomatically signaled second thoughts as to the deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic, suggesting that the system is not proven and the threat that it is meant to counter does not exist. The President, while on a visit to Prague in April, stated, "As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven." Washington also suggested that a diplomatic solution to the Iranian problem is preferable and, if achieved, would make the deployment unnecessary. Even though the idea was never directly stated, giving up the deployment of the shield in Central Europe would eliminate a stumbling block to a declared policy goal of better U.S.-Russia relations.
What's next? U.S. policy towards Central Europe, which helped to transform the region creating stability and new allies on the continent, has been an unequivocal success. But the Bush Administration's post-Iraq policies, including the issue of the missile defense shield, dented pro-American attitudes in Central Europe. Losing the substantial investment America has made in the region would not be a good idea.
In order to prevent that from happening, the Obama administration should stress the desire for continual engagement in Central Europe. This could be done through a new diplomatic initiative (energy security comes to mind) and possibly some sort of financial incentives. At the same time, when addressing the missile defense conundrum, Washington needs to ensure that its dialogue with Russia and decisions on this issue will be communicated and consulted ahead of time with our Central European partners. Going over the heads of the Central European capitals is a wrong approach. There is a long historic memory in the region of the West doing business with Russia without taking into account the interests of the neighboring countries.
Michael Wyganowski is the Executive Director of the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington based think-tank focused on Central Europe.
Email the Author | Email This Post | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Johns Hopkins University.
Comments (3)
The next missile NKorea lobs our way will put missile defense back in play. Missiles are the cheapest way to deliver a weapon, and therefore will be the focus of any second-tier power or underground power. Regular testing and demonstration of the US ability to knock them down will offset the continued investment in these delivery systems.
May 26, 2009 7:13 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on May 26, 2009 07:13
"Obama seems to have given up on missile defense. What will take its place for Central Europe?"
Peaceful coexistence.
May 24, 2009 5:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on May 24, 2009 17:40
This issue of missile defence is a spin matter, for all the money spent on this dream it is still not capable of fulfilling its design.
This author, like so many members of the ruling/academic elite still does not seem to comprehend that the USA is essentially bankrupt, can not afford further development of the missile defence system can not afford to give financial incentive to anybody, for the world can not underwrtie the USA's current deficit. The present modus operandi that the Fed prints 300 billion dollars here and there to buy treasuries has very negative consequences for the immediate future [2-3 years] and a crippling consequence for the next generation.
The author should review his knowledge of grade 8 math, and apply the same to Federal/State/county/city deficits in the current and coming fiscal year [15% of GDP, if not more], then add the present debt of USA society [360% of GDP], and show how htey can manage even basics three years hence - never mind missile defence, wars, and financial help.
May 22, 2009 3:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on May 22, 2009 15:16