The Russian Alternative

President Bush and President Putin have been waging a war of words over the US plan to put in place a defensive missile program in Poland and the Czech Republic (two former Soviet block countries). President Putin strongly opposes this seeing it as a threat to Russian security and a dangerous tilt in the balance of power in NATO's favor. President Bush sees it as necessary to counter the possible development of nuclear weapons by Iran which might be aimed at Europe.

Both nations seemed to be at an impasse until a proposal was made by Putin at the G8 conference being attended by both Presidents. The Putin proposal calls for the missile defense system to be placed in Azerbaijan, a country much friendlier to Russia than either Poland or the Czech Republic. He also said the location was a much better one for the defense of Europe from all missile threats coming from Asia.

"The first proposal is to use the Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan," said Putin. Putin said that if the missile defense system were located in Azerbaijan it would reach the whole of Europe and present a better capability of defending the EU. By locating the missiles in Azerbaijan, Russia would not aim its own missiles towards Europe and would feel more a partner in developing the missile defense system. "This will create necessary grounds for common work," Putin stated.

President Bush seemed interested in the idea but did not make any commitments saying:

"This is a serious issue and we want to make sure that we all understand each other's positions very clearly," said Bush. "As a result of these conversations, I expect there to be better understanding of the technologies involved and the opportunities to work together. As a result of our discussions, we both agreed to have a strategic dialogue, an opportunity to share ideas and concerns between our State Department, Defense Department and military people"

White House National Security Advisor Steve Hadley called Putin's suggestions a "positive step".

"President Putin basically suggested that the proper approach would be for us to get appropriate experts together in a room, put all the proposals on the table and see if we can plot a way ahead that would provide protection to all three regions -- Russia, Europe, and the United States -- in a very transparent and open way," Hadley stated.

The Gabala radar station has a range of about 6,000 kilometers (3,700 miles) and is leased to Russia through 2012. The station, Russia's only military facility in Azerbaijan, plays a significant role in the Russian air defense system. Russian experts believe that the joint use of the Gabala radar would be beneficial for all parties concerned as it covers all potential missile threats coming from Asia, and could eliminate the need to place missile defense radars in Europe, including in the Czech Republic. Putin had stated that under the terms of the station's lease, Russia could invite the U.S. into the facility as a joint operator. Azerbaijan's President has assured Putin that would not be a problem if the U.S. and Russia agreed to jointly operate the Gabala radar facility.

It remains to be seen what if anything will come from this proposal but at the very least it shows that Putin is willing to accommodate some kind of defensive missile program as long as the Russians are involved as equal partners with the West.

Russia Angry Over US Missile Plans

Relations have not been so strained between Russia and the US since the days of the Cold War. The once cordially wary "friends" have been turning up the rhetoric against each other lately; all because of a US plan to include both the Czech Republic and Poland (two former Soviet block countries) in a missile defense system needed to counter a potential threat from Iran.

The Bush Administration plan is to place a radar system in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland. They insist that the plan is not directed at and has nothing to do with Russia. They also insist that they have the right to do whatever they deem necessary to protect America and its interests:

The US will not allow Russia to stop it from deploying anti-missile defenses in Europe, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said in Moscow. "I don't think anyone expects the United States to permit a veto on American security interests," she said after meeting President Vladimir Putin.

On the other hand the Russians see the US plan as a direct threat to Russia. President Vladimir Putin put it this way:

"If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists, will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response.

According to Putin "appropriate action" could include targeting nuclear weapons at Europe:

We will have to have new targets in Europe," Putin said, according to a transcript released by the Kremlin. These could be targeted with "ballistic or cruise missiles or maybe a completely new system" he said. And as if to prove the seriousness of his statements Putin announced the successful test firing of new Russian missiles calling it a response to U.S. plans to build missile defense sites across Europe, and suggested Washington is pursuing an imperialist policy that has triggered a new arms race.

In one of the tests, a prototype of Russia's new intercontinental ballistic missile, called the RS-24, was fired from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk launch site in northwestern Russia and its test warhead landed on target 3,400 miles away on the Kamchatka Peninsula in the far eastern part of the country, officials said.

The military also tested a new cruise missile based on the existing short-range Iskander missile. "It can be used at long range with surgical precision," according to the ITAR-Tass news agency. "Russia needs this weapon to maintain strategic stability." the new cruise missile, R-500, will have a range of up to 310 miles, the limit under a Soviet-era treaty that banned intermediate-range missiles.

"It wasn't us who initiated a new round of arms race," Putin said when asked about Russia's missile tests this week at a news conference in Moscow. In a clear reference to the United States, Putin harshly criticized "diktat and imperialism" in global affairs and warned that Russia will keep strengthening its military potential to maintain a global strategic balance.

As for the American assertion that the missile defense system was to protect against incoming missiles that Iran might launch. Mr Putin expressed skepticism:

“There are no such missiles – Iran does not have missiles with the range”. The US was insisting, he said, that the defense system was to be “installed for the protection from something that does not exist. Is it not sort of funny? It would be funny if it were not so sad.”

He speculated that the real motive was to provoke Russia’s retaliation and so “to avoid further closeness of Russia and Europe”.

The Chinese have also weighed in on the debate supporting the Russian position, saying it could shift the strategic balance of power.

"The Chinese side has always held that missile defense impacts the strategic balance and stability," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said when asked about the U.S. plan, which has drawn angry warnings from Russia. "It is not conducive to mutual trust between major powers and also regional security," Jiang told a news conference. "It can also bring new proliferation problems."

Both President Bush and President Putin are headed to the G8 conference in Germany where they will confront disagreements over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Kosovo, as well as human rights and missile defense. Mr. Bush has also invited Mr. Putin to the Bush family compound in Maine early next month, in what American officials hope will be a more relaxed setting where the two can try to mend fences.

Hearts and Minds!

After losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the American public in the Nov. elections, President George W Bush's strategy both at home and abroad needs some reassessment.

His first response to the new Democratic majority in both houses of Congress was to fire Donald Rumsfeld and then invite Nancy Pelosi (the new House Majority Leader) to have breakfast with him. These were two very good first steps. They were, of course, born of political expediency. Rumsfeld, although following the wishes of Bush, was very unpopular for the way in which he has conducted the war in Iraq. He was dismissed the morning after the election results. This seems to be an admission on the President's part that some things have to change. In the case of Nancy Pelosi, to invite her to have breakfast with him seems an acknowledgement that he will have to make deals with the Democrats for the rest of his presidency. He will no longer have the implied backing of Congress as was the case when the Republicans had control. Bush seems to realize that business as usual, or the way he had become accustomed to conducting it, is a thing of the past. He will now be held in check by a Congress which will no longer be a rubber stamp for his policies and there will be some friction in the two years he has left in office.

The most pressing foreign policy problem facing Bush is the Iraq situation. He is still waiting on the recommendations of the Baker Report, which should be due before the end of the year. It is clear that there needs to be a course correction because those Iraqis don't seem to be listening very well to the plans he has for their country. Maybe, just maybe, democracy Bush style, is not what is best for them.

To make matters worse the Iranians, the North Koreans and the Syrians ( the Axis of Evil) don't seem to be listening very well either to the Leader of the Free World. They all seem to have ideas of their own which definitely don't coincide with Bush's view of how things should be. This world can be a very unruly place to try to control. Maybe, just maybe, he should try to talk with them instead of trying to dictate to them.

Could the Iranians and the Syrians be helpful in controlling the situation in Iraq? Could the North Koreans use a little financial help from the US? Can we make a deal or will more bullying work? It is time to realize that military might is not enough to solve all the problems in the world. Maybe, just maybe, the new Democratically controlled Congress will help President Bush to explore new avenues in dealing with the problems of the world.

Maybe, just maybe, Bush needs not only a course correction but also an attitude correction in dealing with the other inhabitants of this planet. Hopefully the next two years will see some changes for the better, not only at home but also worldwide.

Maps courtesy of www.theodora.com/maps used with permission.

North Korea goes Nuclear

Maps courtesy of www.theodora.com/maps used with permission.

President Bush promised a "A grave consequence" to North Korea if it tried to export nuclear weapons to either Iran or Al-Qaida. At this point I think it is pretty clear that the US has very limited options with regards to North Korea. A military strike seems to be out of the question, if for no other reason than it shares a border with China. The Chinese would not take kindly to any kind of display of American Power on its doorsteps. For this same reason an armed invasion of the country is even less likely.

So what are the "grave consequences" that the President is talking about? A blockade? An embargo? none of which is likely to have any effect without the active participation of the Chinese. China has displayed concern over the actions of North Korea but has essentially done nothing to punish them. In fact China is the one country that could choke the economic life out of North Korea and has been reticent to even vote for sanctions against its neighbor and trading partner.

When you refuse to engage in direct talks with your enemy you limit severely what options you have to influence its behavior. This is the position that America finds itself in. North Korea has been asking for direct talks with the US for years now but to no avail. Bush has refused to deal one on one with them. He has blessed multinational talks which have gone nowhere and have resulted in North Korea testing a nuclear bomb.

In fact America has helped North Korea with the technology and hardware to develop nuclear armaments. The following video implicates Donald Rumsfeld as a director of a company that sold nuclear reactors to North Korea. Now North Korea has the dubious distinction of belonging to two very elite clubs.....The "Axis of Evil Club" and the "Nuclear Weapons Club".

In reality there is nothing much anyone (except maybe China) can do or say that will have an impact on the decisions that North Korea makes. It is already an isolated, poor country. What can you take away from someone who has nothing?

The real question is what lessons will other countries learn (especially Iran) from this? Has the US lost much of its influence in the world and will this experience cause others to wonder why it is not in their best national interest to pursue the development of nuclear weapons technology? Is this the beginning of a new nuclear arms race?