It looks like missile defense will make for some drama at the Moscow summit next week - responding to Russia's hardening stance on missile defense the U.S. administration is making it clear that it is not ready to offer any firm commitment regarding the missile defense deployment in Eastern Europe. Michael McFaul, special assistant to the president and senior White House director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs, told The Wall Street Journal that the United States is "not going to reassure or give or trade...anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense."
It is quite clear that at this point Russia's strong opposition to the missile defense site in Europe is probably the only thing that could save the project - without that opposition the idea is likely to quietly die on its own. (A colleague who returned from a major missile defense conference held about a month ago said that the industry has already got the message and is actively looking for other ideas that would be easier to sell to the skeptical public.) It appears that the U.S. administration would be happy to let this process take its course, but for internal political reasons it cannot possibly open itself to charges that it traded the missile defense away.
One would think that Russia would understand the reasons why Obama can go only so far on missile defense. But the problem is that that Russia does not necessarily want to resolve the issue - far too many people in Moscow get a lot of political mileage out of the controversy and wouldn't mind keeping it alive. This would make any compromise very difficult.
To make things clear, the United States has only itself to blame. As someone noted, the United States often practices North Korea-style politics - it creates a problem and then demands a price to make it go away. It looks like the administration understands that it has to come up with something positive - it apparently wants to seriously explore Russia's offer to use its radars in Gabala and Armavir. But that interest alone might not be enough - some words would need to be said about the elements of missile defense system in Poland and Czech Republic.
One way to deal with the issue would be to return to the idea of "tying together the activation of the sites in Poland and the Czech Republic with definitive proof of the threat", which was articulated by Robert Gates in October 2007. This idea was later killed in the interagency process in the Bush administration, but the Obama administration could certainly revive it (as a bonus, the Bush legacy could help deal with inevitable criticism from the right). That way, the Gabala/Armavir enterprise would not even be part of the missile defense system, which is still quite controversial in Russia. Rather, the U.S.-Russian cooperation would concentrate on threat assessment - a much more reasonable and useful undertaking than missile defense. I certainly hope that the Obama team could put together a reasonable proposal along these lines.
The book
Comments
If Russia's opposition is now the main thing that keeps european missile defence on the agenda, as the article seems to imply, then what called the whole ABM project into question, to begin with?
US clearly wanted to build the ABM. We may not know for what reasons exactly, but given the cost of the project and associated ramlifications, the reasons must be serious and hardly just political.
Now, as the author suggests, US would be happy to let it "go away". Why? What exactly has changed? Has Iran somehow proved that it's not going to build nuclear missiles? Quite the contrary, I think.
I just don't see any other factor at work than Russia's opposition, whether US are happy to admit it or not. Is there any?
The point of contention in creating a working policy that tied the need for a European GBI missile defense site to a recognized threat to the United States from a future Iranian ICBM was always how to actually define the “definitive proof of the threat". Do you build the site and just not turn on the power until such a “definitive proof of the threat" is recognized? Who actually recognizes this threat? Who makes the decision to activate the site? Does Moscow get a vote in the process? Secretary Gates contention that the site in Europe could just be built and not made operational until this future Iranian threat was “recognized” was shot down in Moscow, not Washington. From Russia’s perspective the only decision on this issue that makes any sense is the decision not to build this system in the first place. Russia is going to have to “give up something to get something” here.
I liked the quip about the United States practicing North Korean politics. However; remember, the European site for missile defense is not a problem the United States created. In fact, it’s not a problem at all.
Frank Shuler
USA
If they doesnt want to exchange and expect to get something for nothing - what's the point of the meeting, I wonder? Then all 'reset' thing will be perceived as another story of 'good' US wating to take all they want from the hands of 'bad, wayward' Russia, favourably awarded with chance to confess in all misdoings. Is it point of the US offer - 'forgiveness' only? Is it really the aim of Obama team from the start line in talks? Did they still believe in successful talks without major rollbacks and compromises from US side? It's not serious. Well, it's US stick in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, embittered North Korea and Iran. Not Russia. If US really doesnt need some diplomatic or other help and still not ready to completly forget new missile defence layers in Europe, still not recognize Russia sphere of interests, still cling to the old methods of deterrence through military bases in Europe close to the Russia's borders and even not so far from it's capital city, then again what's the point of the 'reset'?
PS Oh! Maybe it's all about disabling Jackson-Vanik amendment? :)
Frank,
I think the whole point of "definitive proof of threat" offer is to allow Russia to back off and agree on ABM without losing its face.
Shrike,
how far a side is ready to go in upcoming negotiations is usually one of the most well-guarded diplomatic secrets. I'm sure US have something new to offer Russia. Or something new to pressure it with.