Obama's Missile Defense Miscalculation
Written by Walberg, Rebecca Tuesday, 05 January 2010
President Obama's decision in September 2009 to cancel a joint missile defense shield for Poland and the Czech Republic represented a military, diplomatic and cultural miscalculation. Coming on the heels of half a year of military and domestic policy missteps, the move marked the extension of Obamas Potemkin politics grand, public gestures concealing dysfunctional or poorly thought-through policies into the realm of international security. Two NATO members, who contributed troops to fight alongside Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, had their very real defense concerns dismissed in order to appease Russia, a lukewarm ally to the USA and the western world at the best of times, and frequently much less than that.
Now, three months later, it is clear that concessions to Russia did not yield reciprocal gestures or a new spirit of cooperation, but rather cleared the way for belligerence, and threats to develop new long range nuclear missiles. Russia is now emboldened to reverse decades of work on arms reduction and add to its nuclear arsenal, despite already possessing roughly half again as many warheads as the US.
In the fall, some analysts suggested that Obamas gestures would be repaid with greater Russian support in a number of areas, including confronting Iran over its nuclear ambitions. If this was the Presidents strategy, he badly misread his counterparts in Moscow and elsewhere. Almost two decades after Samuel Huntington suggested that the post-Cold War world would organize along civilizational lines, anyone claiming insight into foreign affairs must understand that what is in the western mindset offered as a conciliatory overture can be seen elsewhere as a sign of weakness. This is certainly true of Russia, whose history is littered with strongmen and tyrants, and also applies to different extents to China and the Islamic world. By indicating to Russia and to others antagonistic to American interests that saber-rattling can persuade the worlds hyper-power to withdraw from its military commitments, cutting loose Poland and the Czech Republic jeopardized not only the security of those two states, but ultimately all countries that depend, to whatever degree, upon American protection and guarantees for their security. It goes without saying that many of the worlds nations fit into this category.
The impact of this decision on Poland and the Czech Republic specifically, though, is particularly callous. The announcement of the decision on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland was tone-deaf. More seriously, the diplomatic distancing of these two countries, in which opposition to Communism survived both the Second World War and the Cold War, is a slap in the face to states that have, since becoming democracies, supported the US consistently more consistently than France, or even Canada under Jean Chretien, when it comes to support for military and security operations.
The willingness to offer up allies for the sake of improving relations with less friendly countries has disturbing implications that reach far beyond Eastern Europe. If China should demand that the US distance itself from Taiwan in exchange for political or economic cooperation, if Saudi Arabia or Iran want American support for Israel reduced in exchange for their help fighting terrorists or stopping work on nuclear weapons, or if Pakistan makes cooperation with the US securing its border with Afghanistan contingent upon concessions from India, there is no reason to think Obamas administration will place principle before short term expedience. And while there is no feasible scenario in which Canada faces a military threat from Russia, Moscow has contested our sovereignty in the Canadian Arctic, an issue that now puts both Russian and American pressure to cede our rights within the realm of possibility, however slight.
Withdrawing missile defense protection from Poland and the Czech Republic also carries implications for collective security. In his remarks to the UN General Assembly on September 23, 2009 Obama diminished the importance of alliances shaped to fight the long-gone Cold War. Rather than scoffing at NATO which, as historys most successful mutual defense pact, contained Communism until it crumbled from within, he would do well to consider how an equally durable alliance could be crafted to fight militant Islam, among other challenges of the 21st century. Just as broken windows and graffiti signal a lack of concern for public safety that inevitably gives way to more serious crimes, so does consigning members of NATO to the status of second-tier allies risk inviting further rifts in that and other alliances.
Finally, missile defense in Eastern Europe was not only an issue of protecting the Continent from potential Russian attacks. The USA has long relied upon defenses in the north, including in Canada and the Pacific, to shield its territory from missiles launched in the former USSR. Should Iran develop long range missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads, though, any strikes on North America would best be prevented by a shield in Eastern Europe, close to the trajectory such missiles would take and nearer to their origin than any NATO country except Turkey.
Would the diplomatic and political harm caused by cancelling Eastern European missile defense plans have been justifiable, if they brought about a new era in Russo-Western relations? Thats a question that will never be answered, since Russia has grown more, not less, hostile since September. Russia is seldom on the same page as the US regarding Iran, in part because of its lucrative trade with the Islamic Republic, but its obstruction of UN and western diplomacy has only worsened in recent months. China and Russia have indicated that they will continue to oppose further measures against Iran, undermining the economic and diplomatic efficacy of sanctions, and Irans theocrats plan to take refuge in Russia if turbulence at home persists.
Worst of all, by indicating lack of resolve, Obamas concessions have led an emboldened Russia to announce plans to produce more nuclear weapons in response to the elements of missile defense left intact. Coupled with the expiration of START, this could signal the end of non-proliferation amongst the major powers. A bulked up arsenal controlled by a bellicose Moscow is a threat its neighbours, not because Russia would use nuclear weapons against them but because such a state will have demonstrated its contempt not only for world opinion but also for the norms that govern relations between liberal democracies, an especially chilling prospect in light of Russias incursion into South Ossetia in 2008. And the creation of more nuclear warheads means an increase in the number of weapons that can be stolen, sabotaged, or sold to terrorists or rogue states if central oversight of the Russian military, never particularly reliable, wavers.
Ultimately, Obamas abrupt change of course regarding missile defense in Europe represents a commitment to style over substance, diplomatic novelties over proven alliances, and idealistic doctrine over gritty reality. International solidarity against nuclear proliferation has been weakened, and the stability of long term alliances called into question, with no corresponding improvement in stability in central Asia. This inauspicious beginning to Obamas term of office makes the world less safe for Americans and their allies.
For more information about this or other Fellows at the Canadian Centre for Policy studies or to read more of their work click here.
