CZAREK SOKOLOWSKI/AP

In this March 2007 photograph, a Polish woman protests against the U.S. plan for a missile defence base in Poland, during a demonstration in Warsaw.

PRESIDENT Barack Obama’s decision to suspend the plans to set up new missile bases in the Czech Republic and Poland is being viewed as the first important foreign policy step by the new United States administration. The George W. Bush administration had, in 2002, announced with fanfare that it planned to install a new anti-ballistic missile silo in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic. In August 2008, five months before the Bush administration went out, the U.S. signed agreements with the two countries to operationalise the bases in 2012. The outlandish rationale for this given by the neoconservative administration was that the bases were essential to counter the alleged threat that Iran posed to European security.

The Obama administration, too, insists that threats to Europe from “rogue states” continues to exist. However, Obama, in his live television address in the third week of September, said that his administration would continue to depend on “proven, cost-effective missile systems” using existing bases and sea-based interceptor systems. He said that it was necessary to deploy a defence system “that best responds to the threats that we face”. Such a system, he said, would take the form of a “stronger, smarter and swifter defence” of the U.S. and its military allies.

The President did not, however, spell out the details of the new plan or its possible location.

Robert Gates, the U.S. Defence Secretary, who held the same post in the previous administration, also emphasised that the U.S. had not completely given up its missile defence plan for Europe. Speaking after Obama’s announcement, Gates said that the Pentagon was still in negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic on the deployment of SM-3 missiles on their territory from 2015. The U.S., Gates went on to say, would continue to deploy its “proven missile defence systems in Europe”.

The SM-3 missile system is designed to shoot down missiles in their terminal flight phase. This is also the one that the U.S. is developing for sale to Israel. The U.S. has also assured Poland that it would implement the Bush administration’s promise of installing Patriot missiles on its territory.

There were few takers for the Bush administration’s missile bases plan even among Washington’s staunch allies in western Europe. For the record, Obama continues to insist that Moscow’s fear about the missile defence system was “entirely unfounded”. The Obama administration has also claimed that the decision to wind up the Czech and Polish bases had nothing to do with Russia’s strong protests. In his September 17 speech, Obama stated that his new missile defence architecture for Europe would be “more comprehensive than the previous [Bush] programme”.

West Europeans generally viewed the Bush administration’s move as an unnecessary provocation against Moscow. Vladimir Putin, then Russian President, reacted angrily when the decision was first announced. Russia threatened to make countermoves that had the potential to re-ignite another missile race and a Cold War.

To call Washington’s bluff, Moscow made an offer, to build a missile shield jointly in Azerbaijan to counter any threat from Teheran. But the Bush administration, to the alarm of many close European allies, gave the impression that it was determined to go ahead with the missile bases project close to Russia’s borders.

Many West European countries that Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Defence Secretary, had dismissively referred to as “old Europe”, have forged strong economic links with Russia, especially in the energy sector. The Bush administration’s desire to consolidate the special relationship with East and Central European countries, described by Rumsfeld as the “new Europe”, has always been viewed with deep suspicion by Moscow.

The expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to Russia’s doorstep was construed by Moscow as part of Washington’s game plan to militarily encircle the country. The plan to put anti-missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic was the proverbial last straw for Kremlin.

The political instability triggered by the “colour revolutions” in eastern and central Europe, manipulated by Washington, has the potential to disrupt the gas flows to western Europe. When Russia temporarily stopped the supply of gas to Ukraine in the winter of 2005-06, many West European countries were also adversely affected.

It was, therefore, no surprise that Obama’s decision was welcomed by West European capitals in particular. Russia too has welcomed the decision but has so far reacted cautiously, mainly because the Obama administration has not spelt out in detail what its plans for missile defence really are.

The Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, during his recent visit to New York to address the U.N. General Assembly, described the U.S. decision to scrap the missile shield “as a constructive step in the right direction that deserves a positive response from the international community”. Medvedev also said that his government would now reverse its decision to place “Iskander” missiles in the Baltic region.

The White House has said that the decision to scrap the missile defence programme was not taken under pressure from Moscow but was based on inputs from the American military establishment. The U.S. military has belatedly concluded that Iranian missiles are not much of a threat after all. At the same time, the Obama administration says that the U.S. has to be prepared for all eventualities. Hence the talk of developing alternative missile systems to protect Europe from the missiles of “rogue” nations.

“National missile defence has become a theology in the U.S., not a technology,” said Phillip Coyle, an expert on the subject, who used to supervise weapons testing for the Pentagon. Obama’s right-wing Republican opponents have used words like “sell-out” and “capitulation” to describe the junking of the missile bases programme.

AP

A poster in Prague condemns the planned construction of a U.S. missile defence radar base on Czech territory, on May Day in 2007.

Indications are that the Obama administration’s move was dictated by the urgent need to bring Russia on board on issues connected with Afghanistan and Iran. Obama had also promised to press the “reset button” to improve the frayed relations with Moscow.

Reports in the U.S. media suggest that Obama, during his recent visit to Moscow, acknowledged Russia’s concerns about the U.S. military and political moves in its backyard. The building of the missile bases and the fostering of “colour revolutions” in central and eastern Europe by the U.S. are of particular concern to Russia. In return, Washington expects Moscow to be of more help in its war effort in Afghanistan. The Russian government recently allowed the U.S. Air Force to use Russian airspace to ferry military supplies to Afghanistan.

That the Obama administration wants Moscow’s cooperation in its bid to further isolate Iran on the issue of “uranium enrichment” became all the more evident during the recent U.N. General Assembly meet and the G-20 summit. Iran’s announcement that a “new pilot plant” was under construction for uranium enrichment came in for criticism from the Russian President. Iran has emphasised that the second plant that it is building is under Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) specifications.

The U.S. decision to roll back the missile shield has come just before the scheduled October 1 talks between Iran and the “Iran Six” nations – the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia and Germany. The Iranian government has said that it will not waver in its quest to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes guaranteed under the NPT.

As of now, Russia is sticking to its position on Iran. Speaking soon after Obama’s announcement, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, said that additional sanctions against Iran would be a “serious mistake”. But Medvedev, while addressing a joint press conference with Obama in New York, seemed to be keeping his options open. He said that sanctions, while being rarely productive, were “sometimes inevitable”. China, on the other hand, has stuck to its stance that more sanctions against Iran will be counter-productive.

Meanwhile, the Iranians have reasons to be concerned on another front. The Obama administration, after scrapping the proposal to deploy missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, has now announced its decision to sell $7.8 billion worth of Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile batteries to Turkey, Iran’s next-door neighbour. The White House has said that this is a shift in strategy from fixed missile defence positions in eastern Europe towards a more flexible and adaptable system that is focussed on short-range and mid-range Iranian missiles.