The debate about the U.S. “missile shield” elements’ deployment to Europe is getting increasingly heated and tangled. Even Ukraine got involved in it by Washington’s efforts. Still, it is actually within the North Atlantic Alliance that passions are running the highest. As is known, NATO member states are far from unanimous on the issue; not all of them support the decision to place U.S. MD bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Norway, for instance, openly disagreed with this plan. NATO “veterans” like France, Germany and Italy are not very enthusiastic about it, either. Luxemburg and several other “old European” nations do not seem to like the prospect of U.S. anti-missile bases appearing on this continent. Germany, Italy and France had even tried to put this issue on the November 2006 Riga NATO summit agenda, but Washington curbed the attempt. Moreover, certain European NATO members had shown a tendency to accept Russia’s offer to develop a joint NATO-Russia missile-defense system, but the U.S. administration successfully nipped that in the bud as well.
Of all the “old European” nations, only Great Britain largely supports the U.S. on the issue. As for the newly admitted NATO members like Poland and Czechrep, their governments hail the U.S. project, even though the majority of their populations object to the U.S. bases deployment on their soil.
It looks like a split is growing in NATO’s camp; a number of its members, primarily Norway, openly call for the missile defense issue to be debated within the alliance rather than bilaterally. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has recently said she would “prefer a solution within NATO and also an open discussion with Russia” on basing a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. But, as such consultations would produce unpredictable results, the U.S. spares no effort to check any disagreement with its missile-defense plan within NATO.
In this context, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has assumed an odd position. At first, he warned that the US “shield” had the potential to split the alliance into countries it protects and those it does not. “When it comes to missile defense, there shouldn’t be an A-League and a B-league within NATO,” he said. “For me it is the indivisibility of security that is the guiding principle.” What he meant is that the U.S.-proposed missile-defense program would protect Europe with the exception of its south-eastern part which would a separate smaller-range system because it is so close to Iran.
Therefore, Scheffer suggested complimenting the U.S. program by NATO’s plans to build a tactical anti-missile system by the year 2010. In fact, he proposed expanding the US “missile shield” even further, adding new Europe-based components subordinate to the Pentagon.
Then he fervently joined in the chorus assuring Russia that the U.S. missile-defense plans did not threaten its security. He dismissed the "false arguments" from Russia and other critics, such as German Social Democrats, that an American missile defense system would provoke a new arms race, in a recent long interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph. "No one can convince me that this has any bearing or influence on the Russian deterrent,” he told the reporter.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said he agreed with American assessments of a missile threat from the so called ''rogue states,'' primarily Iran. If we all perceive this threat - I want to have a system where NATO is fully involved,'' he stressed in the interview.
Along with that, NATO secretary general said the alliance should not interfere with the U.S. talks with Poland and the Czech Republic. "I do not see NATO in a definitive role of arbiter, to tell certain allies, 'thou should not do this’," he said. European experts say he, in fact, backed the U.S. plans while rejecting the proposal by Norway, Germany and several other nations to hold broad consultations and work out a clear-cut position on the missile-defense issue.
On the other hand, Scheffer wisely thought of “sweeping a curtsey” to Russia as well. He said the U.S. should discuss its missile defense plans with Russia and be “transparent” about them. "Let's discuss it with the Russians. Let's be transparent with them, and I think the US has been transparent with them," he said. "The Russians are no threat to us. The Russians are partners." He added that NATO had already held two meetings with Russia on the issue and was planning a third one in the near future.
On the whole, it looks like the NATO secretary general is struggling not to fall to the ground between three stools: to convince Washington of his absolute loyalty, to coax the European opposition to the U.S. MD plans into silence, and to appease Russia – all at the same time. However, one is even more prone to fall between three stools than between two. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer might eventually fail to preserve even one of them…
Norway, for instance, openly disagreed with this plan. NATO “veterans” like France, Germany and Italy are not very enthusiastic about it, either. Luxemburg and several other “old European” nations do not seem to like the prospect of U.S. anti-missile bases appearing on this continent. Germany, Italy and France had even tried to put this issue on the November 2006 Riga NATO summit agenda, but Washington curbed the attempt. Moreover, certain European NATO members had shown a tendency to accept Russia’s offer to develop a joint NATO-Russia missile-defense system, but the U.S. administration successfully nipped that in the bud as well.
Of all the “old European” nations, only Great Britain largely supports the U.S. on the issue. As for the newly admitted NATO members like Poland and Czechrep, their governments hail the U.S. project, even though the majority of their populations object to the U.S. bases deployment on their soil.
It looks like a split is growing in NATO’s camp; a number of its members, primarily Norway, openly call for the missile defense issue to be debated within the alliance rather than bilaterally. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has recently said she would “prefer a solution within NATO and also an open discussion with Russia” on basing a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. But, as such consultations would produce unpredictable results, the U.S. spares no effort to check any disagreement with its missile-defense plan within NATO.
In this context, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has assumed an odd position. At first, he warned that the US “shield” had the potential to split the alliance into countries it protects and those it does not. “When it comes to missile defense, there shouldn’t be an A-League and a B-league within NATO,” he said. “For me it is the indivisibility of security that is the guiding principle.” What he meant is that the U.S.-proposed missile-defense program would protect Europe with the exception of its south-eastern part which would a separate smaller-range system because it is so close to Iran.
Therefore, Scheffer suggested complimenting the U.S. program by NATO’s plans to build a tactical anti-missile system by the year 2010. In fact, he proposed expanding the US “missile shield” even further, adding new Europe-based components subordinate to the Pentagon.
Then he fervently joined in the chorus assuring Russia that the U.S. missile-defense plans did not threaten its security. He dismissed the "false arguments" from Russia and other critics, such as German Social Democrats, that an American missile defense system would provoke a new arms race, in a recent long interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph. "No one can convince me that this has any bearing or influence on the Russian deterrent,” he told the reporter.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said he agreed with American assessments of a missile threat from the so called ''rogue states,'' primarily Iran. If we all perceive this threat - I want to have a system where NATO is fully involved,'' he stressed in the interview.
Along with that, NATO secretary general said the alliance should not interfere with the U.S. talks with Poland and the Czech Republic. "I do not see NATO in a definitive role of arbiter, to tell certain allies, 'thou should not do this’," he said. European experts say he, in fact, backed the U.S. plans while rejecting the proposal by Norway, Germany and several other nations to hold broad consultations and work out a clear-cut position on the missile-defense issue.
On the other hand, Scheffer wisely thought of “sweeping a curtsey” to Russia as well. He said the U.S. should discuss its missile defense plans with Russia and be “transparent” about them. "Let's discuss it with the Russians. Let's be transparent with them, and I think the US has been transparent with them," he said. "The Russians are no threat to us. The Russians are partners." He added that NATO had already held two meetings with Russia on the issue and was planning a third one in the near future.
On the whole, it looks like the NATO secretary general is struggling not to fall to the ground between three stools: to convince Washington of his absolute loyalty, to coax the European opposition to the U.S. MD plans into silence, and to appease Russia – all at the same time. However, one is even more prone to fall between three stools than between two. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer might eventually fail to preserve even one of them…
