On 17 September the United States announced it would scrap its plans for a Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) shield in Europe, controversially launched two years ago as an interceptive system against nuclear missile attacks from North Korea and Iran. The "shield" actually was a system of missiles intended to shoot down enemy rockets and they were to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The relevance of this system has been debated intensely within NATO and in other international fora. It has been argued that North Korea, which has nuclear capability, does not have missiles to bring its hostile arsenal to the United States nor Europe. Iran does not at the present have nuclear weapons nor would it be able to reach the same targets should it acquire them.
To many in the West, NATO members included, the concept of the shield seemed a little far-fetched and paranoid. It was also poorly explained by the US, and was therefore received with considerable scepticism also by their friends.
This immediately became a point of contention between the US and Russia. To the Russians it was a build-up of American military presence in their own back yard, their "sphere of influence", and a change of strategic balance. Then President Putin made the point that the shield actually consisted of missiles that could offensively target Russia and therefore represented a new threat. He also said that: "Neither Iran nor North Korea have the weapons that the US is seeking to shoot down. We are being told the anti missile defence system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you?" he asked.
For once I agree with Putin, I feel the BMD shield was too much unnecessary provocation and too little substance.
But now President Barack Obama wants to "UnBush" much of the past eight years in American politics and strike a new accord with the international environ. If he can get Congress behind him there have been positive signals in abundance from his great speeches in Prague, Ankara and Cairo. This week a new American tone has been set about international responsibility to the environment, also very good. Obama also meets with Medvedev later this week, and we can be absolutely sure they will discuss the scrapping of the BMD in a wider strategic context.
Both Moscow and Washington have denied that the US decision has been part of a deal and concessions agreed with the other side. US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates last week argued for his position: "The assessment of Iran's ability to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile had shifted, indicating that the development of such a missile is a long way off," and he went on to state that: "Russia's attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue." President Obama followed up to CBS last Sunday: "My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians."
I think we can take it for granted that is not the whole story. President Obama and Secretary Gates are very able men. All gains or concessions of this nature serve various purposes, they be political or strategic, not only psychological or for general goodwill. President Obama has on several previous occasions linked the defence shield to Iran's nuclear capability and Russia's role in that picture. Russia is a major partner in the development of Iran's nuclear programme. It has also contracted to provide Iran with its own S-300 anti aircraft land to air missile programme to protect its nuclear facilities. This is what Obama seeks to stop.
On 1 October the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will be meeting with Iranian representatives. In no uncertain terms they will be presented with an American demand that Iran abandons its nuclear programme - or face new severe sanctions. This will include an embargo on gasoline, a product the oil producing country of Iran is desperately short of because of total failure in its refinery industry.
The big question is what support the US can muster from its partners. In the last couple of days we have witnessed an apparent U-turn from Moscow. Both President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have made unequivocal statements that tighter measures against Iran are "inevitable" and Russia is ready to support them.
On the other side France, which has been one of America's staunchest supporters of sanctions against Iran, has come out with new signals. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said to the New York Times on Tuesday that he had: "deep misgivings about blocking gasoline shipments to Iran." In other words - another U-turn - so is there a connection? Last week Prime Minister Putin met with his French counterpart Francois Fillon at the presidential residence outside Moscow. At these talks Putin explained his position to the US plan for Iran - and that he intended to thwart the sanctions. What else was agreed nobody knows, but the French Prime Minister have apparently concluded that the sanctions will not be effective, deciding not to exclude French business, and changed his position.
China's deliberations are equally interesting. She has traditionally vetoed all sanctions on countries for breech of international conventions, also against Iran. However, the global financial crisis has shown the Chinese they don't function in a vacuum but are painfully dependent on the world's economic and political climate. Entirely new and promising noises were made by the Chinese President on environmental responsibilities at the UN this week. If the US can convince them to support sanctions against Iran if they persist in their nuclear programme, that would be the real big turn-around, but it will be a hard bargain.
So, we are in for another interesting week in international politics. The way may be short from the October 1 meeting with Iran to a proposal on sanctions in the Security Council. With or without the veto - it will be the yardstick to measure President Obama's level of impact.
The Americans' aim is of course beyond the security issue. The US also hopes to create a situation where the Iranian people rise up and start a process of dismantling the tyrannical religious regime represented by Ali Hoseyni Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I wish them luck!
Ivar Amundsen
Director, Chechnya Peace Forum |
