Eastern Europe Should Not Feel Betrayed By the U.S.

Polish and Czech disappointment over the U.S. scrapping its missile shield is understandable, but baseless, NUPI researchers say.

Moscow was happy yesterday when the U.S. announced that it was abandoning its plans for a missile shield with bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. The disappointment among Eastern Europeans was deep.

They had seen the missiles and the radar systems as security guarantees. Polish papers described America’s retreat as a betrayal.

“Betrayal! U.S. sold us out to Russia and stabbed us in the back!” said the front page of the tabloid Fakt.

“No more illusions, Obama does not love Poland,” said Super Express.

“Seen from Poland’s point of view, this is very bad,” said Polish President Lech Kaczynski to the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, according to the Associated Press.

To add insult to injury, the White House announced it on September 17th, the day Soviet tanks rolled into Poland more than 70 years ago.

“The timing is surprising. I am not sure the Americans considered it. They should have,” says researcher Julie Wilhelmsen of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.

Wilhelmsen still thinks that the Polish and Czech disappointment is purely “mental” and irrational. As NATO members they are still secure. The Atlantic Treaty says that an attack on a member state is an attack on all.

But the Polish and Czech fears that they will be sacrificed are completely understandable. Even if the United States has always maintained that the shield is not directed against Russia, they had always seen it as a guarantee that they were within the Western security umbrella. Historically they have had a difficult relationship with Russia, and so they have in a way joined with the West, she explains.

Wilhelmsen thinks the fact that America abandoned the plan expresses a desire by the new government to change its relationship with Russia. This goal was probably so important that it trumped other considerations.

She also thinks that the Eastern Europeans should be happy about the change in America’s attitude towards Russia.

“This is an important positive step. If the downward spiral had continued it would have had negative consequences for everyone’s security, including that of Eastern Europeans.”

Wilhelmsen thinks that the Eastern European states are partly to blame for the deterioration in relations between Russia and the West.

Under Bush, the Eastern European countries had too much influence in American politics. They also had a lot of influence in NATO and the EU. Their skepticism influenced the way Western nations viewed Russia, says Wilhelmsen.

Her colleague at the same institute, Daniel Heradstveit, an analyst of geopolitical development, agrees that the American decision does not mean that America is making Eastern Europe a lower priority. Heradstveit thinks that the abandonment of the missile defense system is a result of a more pragmatic foreign policy, where interests are balanced in a strategic manner, as opposed to the rigid Bush policies. At that time, the relationship with Eastern Europe was an ideological imperative in and of itself.

“We are not at all talking about the abandonment of these countries. The missile shield was an expression of an ideologically driven foreign policy. Obama’s foreign policy is pragmatically driven. That means that some interests must yield to others. That is not the same as making the Eastern European nations less of a priority.”

Heradsveit believes Iran played a role in the American decision. The U.S. needs Russia on its side in order to force Iran’s hand on their nuclear program.

“We are seeing the contours of a brand new foreign policy, with more weight on the multilateral, where Iran is not placed in an ‘Axis of Evil,’ but is invited back into the fold. To do that, Obama needs an understanding with the Russians. It reminds me of the Cold War: ‘We will give you an advantage here, and you will give us an advantage there,’” Heradstveit says.