News that Washington and Warsaw have come to an agreement in
principle on fielding 10 interceptors in Poland as part of
America's missile defense system in Europe marks a positive
development for transatlantic relations and international
security.[1]
A comprehensive missile defense system offers protection to
America, its forward deployed troops, and its allies. The placement
of interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic would
bolster transatlantic security, protecting both the United States
and Europe from the growing threat of long-range ballistic missiles
and the unconventional payloads they may carry.
In order to begin construction, the Administration must now seek
final agreements with Warsaw and Prague and expedite fulfillment of
the conditions imposed in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008.[2] Congress should also fully fund President
Bush's fiscal year (FY) 2009 funding request of $720 million for
the system's actual construction.[3]
A Long and Winding Road
After a protracted period of negotiations over fielding a
missile defense system in Europe, the announcement by Polish
Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, that "the impasse in the
negotiations over the anti-missile shield has been broken,"
represents something of a diplomatic breakthrough.[4] It moves toward a
final deal after a significant period of stagnation, during which
the new administration of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has
found its feet.
However, the road ahead will not be an easy one. Minister
Sikorski, in office for just three months, has made it clear that
Poland intends to extract financial and security guarantees from
the United States, additional to its existing arrangements under
the NATO alliance. The U.S. must take these requests seriously,
which among other things will likely include a petition for PAC-3
batteries to bolster Polish air defenses.
In the face of increased Russian animosity and intimidation,
Washington has already invested considerable financial and
political capital in its bilateral alliance with Warsaw and it
should continue to do so; (Poland is the greatest recipient of U.S.
military aid in Europe.) Poland is a valuable alliance member in
Iraq and Afghanistan and a key partner within NATO. The
modernization of the Polish military presents a win-win opportunity
for Washington and Warsaw. Poland is proposing to send an
additional 400 troops to Afghanistan at the end of April,[5] at a
time when older NATO members such as Germany are not pulling their
weight and others are reconsidering their commitment to the
mission. The United States must use the negotiations over missile
defense to shore up its broader bilateral relationship with
Poland.
The Russian Question
Moscow has been vociferous in insisting that a European missile
defense system is a serious threat to Russian interests. Days
before the Warsaw-Washington announcement, the Russian Defense
Ministry stated that Russia may restructure its military presence
in Kaliningrad, on the border of Poland and Lithuania, in response
to missile defense plans for Eastern Europe.[6] Russian President
Vladimir Putin has even drawn parallels between the plans for an
Eastern European missile shield and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis,
which saw the Soviet Union and the United States go to the brink of
nuclear war.[7]
But Russia's objections hold little water. A hypothetical
Russian land-based nuclear strike on the United States would not be
launched on a trajectory over Poland, but would fly toward its
American targets over the North Pole, or Iceland and Greenland,
depending on the targets. Furthermore, according to the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA), the proposed kinetic kill vehicle designated
for deployment in Poland is simply not fast enough to catch a
Russian land-based intercontinental ballistic missile in a
tail-chase scenario. The Polish-based interceptors would also have
no capability against Russia's sea- or air-based nuclear deterrence
capabilities.
Despite multiple offers and counter-offers between Washington
and Moscow over missile defense, Washington must recognize that
reconciliation is extremely unlikely. Russian anxiety is more
likely about the placement of the system in what it perceives as
its old stomping grounds, rather than any real strategic concerns.
Ultimately, neither Washington nor Moscow will abandon its position
for or against the planned Eastern European sites. Unless America
is prepared to let Moscow dictate American security policy, it must
tell Moscow that they will have to agree to disagree. It must also
send the message that Russian intimidation of a key ally and NATO
partner will not be tolerated.
The EU Question
The European Freedom Alliance Party in the European Parliament
is reportedly calling to make missile defense in Eastern Europe an
EU issue.[8] This is bad news. The supranational
European Union is a bureaucratic, statist, cumbersome,
anti-American entity that has attempted to frustrate American
policy on multiple occasions. The involvement of the EU is
unnecessary and would effectively kill any hope of a deal. Poland,
the Czech Republic, and the United States must give zero
consideration to involving the EU at any level.
For its part, NATO has generally considered the
Washington-Warsaw-Prague talks to be bilateral and has not
interfered. Also, NATO has expressed general support for European
missile defenses, especially against short- and medium-range
missiles. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated after
the April North Atlantic Council meeting: "There is absolutely a
shared threat perception between the allies. Allies all agree that
there is a threat from ballistic missiles."[9] NATO's developing
interest in missile defense is a good thing; it should ultimately
complement America's missile defense program in Eastern Europe.
There is no reason to believe that simultaneous development of
missile defenses in Europe by both NATO and the U.S. would be
incompatible in the long-term.
Conclusion
President Bush is correct in asserting that the need for missile
defense in Europe is both real and urgent.[10] The number of
nuclear weapons states is increasing, as well as the number of
states with ballistic missiles. Iran's announcement this week of a
space program, which could feed a long-range missile program, does
not help matters. The United States has rightly decided that it
must never leave itself vulnerable to any weapons system or state
and that comprehensive missile defense will protect the homeland,
its troops deployed abroad, and its allies. Moscow will undoubtedly
try to make missile defense a wedge issue to divide Europe,
undermine NATO, and weaken transatlantic relations, all while
carving out a sphere of political and military influence for
itself.
Hosting a transatlantic missile defense system will deepen and
further unify the security relationship between Poland, the Czech
Republic, and the United States and will significantly enhance
mutual national security against external threats from ballistic
missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Washington, Warsaw, and
Prague will need to invest considerable political capital and
demonstrate real leadership to pull off a final deal before
President Bush leaves office. It is essential they do so.
Sally McNamara
is Senior Policy Analyst in European Affairs in the Margaret
Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby
Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage
Foundation. Peter
Brookes is Chung Ju Yung Fellow and Senior Fellow for National
Security Affairs in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute
for International Studies. Oliver Horn, Research Assistant in The
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, assisted in the preparation
of this paper.