CSS Analysis in Security Policy - US Missile Defense: A Strategic Challenge for Europe
Written by William Nuland
The US intention to extend parts of its missile defense system to Poland and the Czech Republic has ruffled feathers throughout Europe. The issue has been particularly divisive in Germany, where Merkel has tried to occupy the diplomatic middle ground by proposing a multilateral missile shield project under NATO auspices in its stead - a suggestion that the US has rejected. Daniel Möckli of the Center for Security Studies probes the nuances of the transatlantic debate and maintains that the implications of the proposal reach beyond the discussion on American military influence and into the realm of European security stability.
The sense of urgency with which United States has pushed its missile defense agenda on European decision-makers is merely a spike in an enduring American military policy interest. Strategic missile defense first gained public attention during the Reagan administration under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), commonly referred to under its sensational pop-culture moniker, “Star Wars.” The current push is an abridged version of SDI ambitions: the intention to thwart threats from single long-range missiles originating in Iran or North Korea. To the mind of US policy makers, stationing interceptor missiles on the European continent - in conjunction with pre-existing interceptors and those in development - is a necessary component in “provide[ing] a broad and reliable defense shield.”
The Polish and Czech governments have agreed to bilateral negotiations on the placement of missiles on their home soil. Britain is also reportedly looking to station interceptor missiles within its borders. However, the divisions on the missile defense issue are arguably more substantial than any sense of unity.
According to the CSS Analysis of the National Missile Defense (NMD) plan, the pronounced European diplomatic and security concerns relate to three areas. First is the concern that - in light of Russian president Putin’s remarks at the February 2007 Munich Security Conference, in which he accused the US of attempting to establish a unipolar world and warned of an “inevitable arms race” - Moscow will exploit European reticence to its political advantage and will use the US missile shield to abrogate existing treaties. Second is the necessity of the missile shield in general. The US State Department predicts that by 2015 Iran will be capable of striking Europe with nuclear warheads, but many European leaders are skeptical. There is also concern that the effectiveness of the shield itself would amount to little more than “the attempt to shoot down a bullet with another bullet.”
Arguably of greatest concern to European security policy, however, is the fear that lack of direct NATO involvement would undermine the “core principle of transatlantic security,” and might cut into the legitimacy of NATO in general. Though the US has discussed a “tactical” coordination with NATO defense systems, it has no plans to cede any aspect of the NMD to NATO directly. Moreover, the bilateral discussions with Poland and the Czech Republic indicate that Washington has little faith in Europe’s ability to achieve a common stance on the NMD.
Note: The Center for Security Studies is a division of ETH-The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology-and is based in Zurich
