Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

April 22, 2007 |  2 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Missile Defense: Washington's Deal with Prague

Wess Mitchell: I recommend a security agreement with Prague now to set precedent for missile defense negotiations with other NATO members later, starting with Poland. Bilateral agreements with Eastern European countries would reinforce Washington’s strategic commitment to the region and would not undermine NATO in the least.

This week, Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg will visit Washington. During the trip, Schwarzenberg is expected to repeat his request, made two weeks ago, for a US security agreement in exchange for hosting anti-ballistic missile radar sites on Czech soil. Critics claim the agreement would sideline NATO and antagonize Moscow, which has threatened to target any former satellites that participate in the Missile Defense System (MDS). But on both counts, a renewed US pledge to NATO’s smallest and most exposed eastern members has the potential to do more good than harm.

First, US officials need not worry about undermining NATO. As one senior Czech official told the author, “We have full confidence in Article 5…[but] common sense tells us increased cooperation with the United States…in fields not covered by NATO may be necessary.” What Prague appears to want is an enhanced cooperation agreement similar to those that Washington has with Britain and Denmark, which also host US defense sites. Far from diluting NATO, these arrangements push member relations toward a higher plane of practical cooperation—a direction in which the Alliance as a whole should be moving.

Second, while it may provoke Russian complaints in the short-term, a US-Czech agreement could reduce overall tension by demonstrating the depth of Washington’s strategic commitment to its allies in the region. Such a statement is long overdue. When Russian generals threatened in February to aim missiles at Warsaw and Prague if they participated in MDS, NATO failed to adequately respond. This prompted the Czechs to look—as Schwarzenberg said—for “an affirmation of the alliance.” Any reluctance on Washington’s part to provide such an affirmation would only fuel regional anxiety and embolden Moscow to push harder next time.

But Russia would not be the only intended audience for the new agreement. In negotiations with Prague, Washington can establish a standard package for what it will provide other fellow-travelers in the MDS program. This could help in dealings with Warsaw, where some officials want an elaborate package of US concessions that includes a 1930s-style mutual defense treaty, antimissile batteries, and—allegedly—a cash payment of $200 million. By contrast, Prague’s concept could eventually be extended to other Alliance members as part of a joint US-NATO missile system.

In the end, Washington’s request for sites faces as much of a challenge in the notoriously fickle Czech and Polish parliaments as does funding for the system in the US Congress. Regardless of what happens to the shield itself, however, adding another NATO member to the shortlist of Washington’s most trusted allies while meeting the mutual US-Czech desire for closer defense cooperation would be well worth the trouble, for both sides.

Wess Mitchell is director of research at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a policy institute devoted to the study of Central Europe.

Related Material from the Atlantic Community

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Dominik  Bertram

April 25, 2007

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
While I agree about not giving in to Russian threats, I think it were sending out the wrong signs to other newly admitted members of the EU / NATO if the US would sign a treaty with Poland and or the Czech Republic. I think it has to be demonstrated that the West is in fact united, and therefore a bilateral agreement with the US and any member state of the EU is highly contra-productive. That does not diminish the dire need for a missile defense in order to balance Iran's nuclear ambitions, while keeping Russia at bay.
 
Tobias  Wolny

April 27, 2007

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
“Old vs. New Europe revisited”

Reading the article by Wess Mitchell from a European perspective is a rather sobering exercise: the EU does not appear to matter much in this discussion.

The problem goes beyond the planned missile defense: One gets the impression that the moment the White House or the Kremlin knock against our door, we Europeans succumb to national reflexes and opt for a bilateral rather than a multilateral approach. The Czechs and Poles flirt with US security offers, Germany and Italy can’t get enough (of) Russian gas. In the meantime we dutifully pay lip service to our common aspiration of a united security or energy policy…

Wess Mitchell referred to Czech security concerns – I find it telling how the most prominent Czech, former president Vaclav Havel, justifies his support for the missile defense: Europe has always been and will continue to be incapable of solving conflicts and handling military threats on its own, it needs the US! („Proč radar přijmout“, Pravo, 6.2.2007)

What surprises me the most: our fundamental inability and/or reluctance to understand Central European security concerns and motives in this debate. Before their accession to the EU we Germans used to present ourselves as the advocate (“Anwalt”) of Poland and the Czech Republic. Are we still?

I fully support Foreign Minister Steinmeier when – in respect of the missile defense – he warns against “the danger of driving a wedge through Europe and NATO, and of reviving old reflexes in Russia.” His call for an “intense dialogue” is always a good idea, but among which players?

Steinmeier tries to understand the US desire to protect itself, he points to the need to keep Russia informed at all times, he contemplates negotiation tactics with Iran, but…not a word about Polish or Czech concerns in this process! Shouldn’t these two countries be our prime focus, so that we can attain a common EU position first and then come out stronger vis-à-vis third parties?

Not only are Prague and Warsaw united on the missile defense issue, they happen to be the among the fiercest Eurosceptics, too. Their support for the Constitutional Treaty is at best lukewarm. I would argue that this is all the more a reason to engage with them!

Instead we either choose to ignore them because their leaders espouse admittedly un-European views on a wide range of issues, or even worse, we treat and reprimand them like kids (remember Chirac during the Iraq war: “they missed a good opportunity to keep quiet”).

Much is at stake. The spectre of an Old Europe vs. a New Europe divide is complicating our efforts to make the EU fit for the security challenges of the 21st century! I wouldn’t blame the US if they comfortably leaned back and watched all this with a fair degree of Schadenfreude!

Maybe it’s time for a new Ostpolitik. With more of a Sliwowice rather than vodka flavour to it. For the sake of stronger and more efficient EU.
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Tina  Hoefinghoff
Tina Hoefinghoff
Member since
October 30, 2008

Poll