http://www.europolitics.info/external-policies/us-seeks-european-support-for-revised-missile-defence-plan-art260484-44.html
Europolitics January 20, 2010 US seeks European support for revised missile defence plan By Paul Ames -Obama’s team has also sought to 'NATO-ise' the US plan by involving other allies more closely in its development and deployment. The idea is to create a NATO chain of command similar to that long used for allied air defences. That would involve a NATO 'backbone' for command-and-control jointly funded by the allies, into which the US sea-based defences and other national assets, such as short-range Patriot missile interceptors purchased by European nations including Germany, the Netherlands and Greece, could be 'plugged in' to the NATO system creating a multi-layered defence shield. The Obama administration is pushing European allies to back its revised anti-ballistic missile plan by agreeing at a NATO summit later this year on the deployment and funding of a command-and-control system that would form the backbone of an alliance missile defence shield. In parallel to bringing the Europeans on board, Washington is expected to launch a new drive to improve security relations with Russia, which has voiced opposition to the anti-missile plan despite initially welcoming changes announced by President Barack Obama in September 2009. Regardless of Moscow’s gripes, the Americans are convinced that a missile shield is needed to ensure the territorial defence of NATO allies on both sides of the Atlantic.... The original proposals from the Bush administration would have complemented interceptor missile bases in Alaska and California with the deployment of ten such defensive missiles in Poland along with a radar base in the Czech Republic. That plan was strongly opposed by Russia, which feared the system would weaken its nuclear deterrent. Although European leaders backed the plan at a 2008 summit in Bucharest, many were lukewarm about the scheme given the angry reaction from Moscow, doubts about the nature of the threat from Iran and the effectiveness of the anti-missile system. “Phased, adaptive approach” In September, Obama announced he would replace the Bush plan with a “phased, adaptive approach” that backs away from any early positioning in Eastern Europe. Instead, it focuses on the deployment of ship-borne interceptors the Mediterranean Sea. However, it still holds out the prospect of land-based anti-missile defences in Europe.... Obama’s team has also sought to 'NATO-ise' the US plan by involving other allies more closely in its development and deployment. The idea is to create a NATO chain of command similar to that long used for allied air defences. That would involve a NATO 'backbone' for command-and-control jointly funded by the allies, into which the US sea-based defences and other national assets, such as short-range Patriot missile interceptors purchased by European nations including Germany, the Netherlands and Greece, could be 'plugged in' to the NATO system creating a multi-layered defence shield. Washington is hoping for an agreement at a NATO summit, to be held November 19-20 in Lisbon, which is also set to agree on a new strategic concept to underpin the alliance’s role in the 21st century. Moscow initially welcomed the changes to the US anti-missile plan, but at the end of last year, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin launched an attack on Obama’s proposals. He called it an obstacle to strategic arms talks with the Americans and warned that Russia may have to develop new offensive weapons to counter the missile shield. Putin’s comments underscored continued tensions between Moscow and Washington, almost a year after US Vice-President Joe Biden announced the new administration would “press the reset button” to improve relations that had frayed during the Bush years. .... However, missile defence may not be the only issue complicating the bid to develop warmer ties. The debate on NATO’s new strategic concept has raised questions about the alliance’s ability to provide fast and effective territorial defence of its Eastern members, particularly the Baltic states. NATO has avoided drawing up formal contingency plans for the defence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in part due to concern by some Western European allies that such a move would inflame Russia. Since the August 2008 war in Georgia, however, pressure has mounted on the alliance to ensure that it is prepared for any contingency for all its members under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which guarantees that an attack on one ally will be considered an attack on all. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato Blog site: http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ To subscribe, send an e-mail to: [email protected] or [email protected] Daily digest option available. ==============================
