Skip to main content

The Waterloo Room

Matthew Bondy

Obama: Decision to scrap BMD in Europe not about Russia

By Matthew Bondy - 5 months ago

Check this out.

Synopsis:

President Barack Obama sharply dismisses criticism that Russian opposition influenced his decision to scrap a European missile defense system, calling it merely a bonus if the leaders of Russia end up "a little less paranoid" about the U.S.

"My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians," Obama told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview for broadcast Sunday. "The Russians don't make determinations about what our defense posture is."

He could have made a serious speech on the subject, directly addressing this particular issue. He could have put the Russia angle to bed months ago.

He could have said he is working with Israel and other allies to build a better shield to defend against the danger Iran actually poses today: short and medium range missile attacks.

He could have said that, in doing so, he is planning for the defence of US allies in central Eurasia now - not protecting them from hypothetical security scenarios about a decade from now.

He could have explained - he is the great explainer, is he not? - that the Russian Federation had no business feigning incredulity in the face of the erstwile system, and that their pleasure with the change in policy is incidental to American policy. He could have said that he would have absolutely pushed forward with the Bush plan if he considered it superior relative to the changes he envisions.

Why Mr. Obama let the "this-is-about-Russia" narrative - in which I have certainly participated - persist for so long is beyond me, if he in fact has made a foreign policy judgement with disregard for Russia's inflamed rhetoric and actions on this file. Perhaps he thought this would help him with the Russians and that there were no drawbacks to such a narrative developing?

 

Labels: Arms Control, Diplomacy, Security

Article Rating

Average: 4  out of  5 (1 vote)  

3 Comments

 
Post #1
Michael Middleton Michael Middleton - 5 months ago

Hi Matt, suppose [for arguments sake] that President Obama did trade BMD for Russian cooperation on Iran, is that really so terrible?  While we butted heads repeatedly over the relative threat posed by Russia, I think a strong argument could be made that Iran poses the more immediate threat.  Or is BMD too high a cost to pay?

 
Post #2
Michael Middleton Michael Middleton - 5 months ago

Thought you might be interested in Fareed Zakaria's recent article in NewsWeek, " A Return to Reality"

 
Post #3
Matthew Bondy Matthew Bondy - 5 months ago

Hey Michael,

Thanks for the comments. As to your first message. I think it is "really so terrible" for the same reasons articulated by Brzezinski: it politically (and from a security perspective) disenfranchises two key US allies in a fairly volatile region. The US must not ever treat allies in this manner, lest its credibility as the leader of an array of global alliances be called into question. For the Pole or the Czech, this could easily be interpreted as "making a deal" while forgoing the interests of important allies.

My support of BMD has never been unqualified. In the short term, the system envisioned for eastern Europe would not have yielded much in the way of meaningful security gains. But it was an important diplomatic and strategic initiative; important because it was part of a process of strengthing US alliances, standing for the self-determination of former Soviet satellites, and strengthening defence against rogue states.

Further, I do not have any ideological desire to have the US pick a fight with Russia. Some readers may choose to interpret my writing on this subject as not representing this position - nothing I can do about that. I think Russia could be a very important partner in enhancing political and security stability across Eurasia, in the Pacific and indeed in the middle east. Russia chooses to engage in certain behaviours which make it politically impossible for the US and other liberal democracies to foster deeply positive relationships with it - it also continues to obstruct legitimate international measures to enforce the non-proliferation norm and uphold international law.

There are lots of intersecting issues that deserve to be considered in the BMD debate, but among the most important is US credibility as an ally and as a leader which insists upon the right of nations to live free from fear of domination by aggressive great powers. 

Would you like to comment?

You must be a member. Sign In if you are already a member.

Viewed 222 times