America Does Not Trust Us, but Asks Us to Trust Them
Published in KM
(Russia) on 7 December 2011
by Ivan Gladilin (link to original)
The U.S. Representative to NATO "argued" the American position on the European Missile Defense System
In Russia we cannot understand the whole basis of U.S. and NATO efforts to establish an anti-ballistic missile defense system in Europe — the so-called European BMD. Well, dull and suspicious as we are, the obvious fact is lost on us that the American radars and missile interceptors are placed along the perimeter of our borders exclusively to fend off the threat of Iranian missiles, and the European BMD is not directed against Russia in any way. Well, we don't believe in the sincerity of the Americans and their European allies — a real misfortune.
And now, the newspaper "Kommersant" has undertaken to enlighten us on this account, publishing an article yesterday by the General Secretary of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and today, an interview with the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, Ivo Daalder. What a double-barreled propaganda volley upon our disbelieving heads, which cannot grasp truisms. Both publications, by the way, are timed for tomorrow's session of the NATO-Russia Council, at which the European BMD situation will be discussed as the primary theme.
The U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO (the so-called European BMD is, in fact, almost entirely an American construct, and therefore, they essentially run the whole project) took full advantage of the grandstand given him to substantiate the U.S. position. He explained, in particular, why NATO rejected Dmitri Medvedev's proposed idea to establish — together with Russia — a sectored European BMD system, with Russia taking the responsibility to protect the continent from potential Iranian missile attacks from its direction, and NATO from its own direction.
"NATO cannot accept this idea," explained Mr. Daalder, "simply because we are certain that only the Alliance, and no foreign power, must guarantee the security of its members and their territories. After all, Moscow does not want NATO to be responsible for Russia's security. So we are convinced that NATO must be responsible for protecting the countries of the Alliance, and Russia must be responsible for its own security."*
Logical? At first glance, yes. But only if the "argument of no confidence" is carried out consistently, extending not only to the "sectored" principle, but to all future construction of the BMD. And so, Mr. Daalder, goes the logical nonsense: You don't agree with building the Missile Defense Shield according to the "sectored" principle, because you don't trust Russia, but you urge Russia to trust that the BMD is not directed against Russia. You say Russia must believe the Americans. But Americans have no right to believe Russia.
Mr. Daalder also explained why the Americans refuse to give Moscow any legal guarantees that the BMD will not be directed against Russia. "It's just a piece of paper with a little text. Why wouldn't Washington sign it?" asked "Kommersant."
"It is not at all necessary to sign some little paper," answered Daalder. "There are two reasons why the U.S. refuses to give such guarantees. First, the United States simply on principle cannot accept any kind of limitation on our defense system. Exactly as Russia would not agree, if the U.S. began to dictate parameters for Russia's defensive weapons. We alone are responsible for establishing those systems that satisfy our needs for security. In the Near East, there exists a real threat of proliferation of missile technology, and we are certain of the need to deploy the BMD system, which will be in a position to protect the U.S., our forces, and our allies. Therefore we cannot accept any kind of limitation on the capabilities of this system, to guarantee such protection. What we are ready to do is provide a written political guarantee that our system is not aimed at Russia. We believe that the best guarantee would be U.S. and Russian cooperation on the BMD. This cooperation gives a much higher level of protection and knowledge of our system, than any piece of paper."
And so, the U.S. (here we are not speaking of the other NATO countries; none of them have the means to establish a BMD system themselves) cannot give Russia legal guarantees "simply on principle," while they also cannot accept "any kind of limitation" on the BMD being established.
That last bit, by the way, is especially revealing — and especially dangerous! — for Russia. What does that mean, BMD "without any kind of limitations?" And that the system will, in time, be able to shoot down modern Russian ICBMs, thus depriving Russia of the potential to counterattack in the event of a nuclear strike. And after all that, the Americans continue to assure us that we must trust them?
As to Mr. Daalder's statements that the U.S. "cannot accept any kind of limitation on our defense system," and "exactly as Russia would not agree, if the U.S. began to dictate parameters for Russia's defensive weapons," it was not always so. It is enough to recall the Soviet-American Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Until 2001, when George W. Bush notified Vladimir Putin that America was unilaterally pulling out of the treaty, that document was a cornerstone of international security. But now the Americans, with the help of the European BMD and any other missile defense systems, want absolute military superiority, for which they try to deprive Russia of the potential of a nuclear counterstrike. And for this, they ask Russia to trust them completely...
These appeals are especially touching, by the way, coming from the lips of Daalder. Remember that before his 2009 appointment as the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, he worked in a number of "think tanks" in America, developing strategies to transform NATO from a regional (North Atlantic) structure to a truly global position. A "Daalder style" Alliance would have included Japan, India, Australia, Brazil, the UAE (but not Russia or China) and in time, it would simply replace the UN. Another idea of his is to establish some kind of League of Democracies, which could conduct military operations in various parts of the planet, without the agreement of the UN Security Council.
* Translator Note: All of the Ivo Daalder quotes come from this interview in Kommersant, in Russian. http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1832913?stamp=634591068535488106
In Russia we cannot understand the whole basis of U.S. and NATO efforts to establish an anti-ballistic missile defense system in Europe — the so-called European BMD. Well, dull and suspicious as we are, the obvious fact is lost on us that the American radars and missile interceptors are placed along the perimeter of our borders exclusively to fend off the threat of Iranian missiles, and the European BMD is not directed against Russia in any way. Well, we don't believe in the sincerity of the Americans and their European allies — a real misfortune.
And now, the newspaper "Kommersant" has undertaken to enlighten us on this account, publishing an article yesterday by the General Secretary of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and today, an interview with the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, Ivo Daalder. What a double-barreled propaganda volley upon our disbelieving heads, which cannot grasp truisms. Both publications, by the way, are timed for tomorrow's session of the NATO-Russia Council, at which the European BMD situation will be discussed as the primary theme.
The U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO (the so-called European BMD is, in fact, almost entirely an American construct, and therefore, they essentially run the whole project) took full advantage of the grandstand given him to substantiate the U.S. position. He explained, in particular, why NATO rejected Dmitri Medvedev's proposed idea to establish — together with Russia — a sectored European BMD system, with Russia taking the responsibility to protect the continent from potential Iranian missile attacks from its direction, and NATO from its own direction.
"NATO cannot accept this idea," explained Mr. Daalder, "simply because we are certain that only the Alliance, and no foreign power, must guarantee the security of its members and their territories. After all, Moscow does not want NATO to be responsible for Russia's security. So we are convinced that NATO must be responsible for protecting the countries of the Alliance, and Russia must be responsible for its own security."*
Logical? At first glance, yes. But only if the "argument of no confidence" is carried out consistently, extending not only to the "sectored" principle, but to all future construction of the BMD. And so, Mr. Daalder, goes the logical nonsense: You don't agree with building the Missile Defense Shield according to the "sectored" principle, because you don't trust Russia, but you urge Russia to trust that the BMD is not directed against Russia. You say Russia must believe the Americans. But Americans have no right to believe Russia.
Mr. Daalder also explained why the Americans refuse to give Moscow any legal guarantees that the BMD will not be directed against Russia. "It's just a piece of paper with a little text. Why wouldn't Washington sign it?" asked "Kommersant."
"It is not at all necessary to sign some little paper," answered Daalder. "There are two reasons why the U.S. refuses to give such guarantees. First, the United States simply on principle cannot accept any kind of limitation on our defense system. Exactly as Russia would not agree, if the U.S. began to dictate parameters for Russia's defensive weapons. We alone are responsible for establishing those systems that satisfy our needs for security. In the Near East, there exists a real threat of proliferation of missile technology, and we are certain of the need to deploy the BMD system, which will be in a position to protect the U.S., our forces, and our allies. Therefore we cannot accept any kind of limitation on the capabilities of this system, to guarantee such protection. What we are ready to do is provide a written political guarantee that our system is not aimed at Russia. We believe that the best guarantee would be U.S. and Russian cooperation on the BMD. This cooperation gives a much higher level of protection and knowledge of our system, than any piece of paper."
And so, the U.S. (here we are not speaking of the other NATO countries; none of them have the means to establish a BMD system themselves) cannot give Russia legal guarantees "simply on principle," while they also cannot accept "any kind of limitation" on the BMD being established.
That last bit, by the way, is especially revealing — and especially dangerous! — for Russia. What does that mean, BMD "without any kind of limitations?" And that the system will, in time, be able to shoot down modern Russian ICBMs, thus depriving Russia of the potential to counterattack in the event of a nuclear strike. And after all that, the Americans continue to assure us that we must trust them?
As to Mr. Daalder's statements that the U.S. "cannot accept any kind of limitation on our defense system," and "exactly as Russia would not agree, if the U.S. began to dictate parameters for Russia's defensive weapons," it was not always so. It is enough to recall the Soviet-American Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Until 2001, when George W. Bush notified Vladimir Putin that America was unilaterally pulling out of the treaty, that document was a cornerstone of international security. But now the Americans, with the help of the European BMD and any other missile defense systems, want absolute military superiority, for which they try to deprive Russia of the potential of a nuclear counterstrike. And for this, they ask Russia to trust them completely...
These appeals are especially touching, by the way, coming from the lips of Daalder. Remember that before his 2009 appointment as the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, he worked in a number of "think tanks" in America, developing strategies to transform NATO from a regional (North Atlantic) structure to a truly global position. A "Daalder style" Alliance would have included Japan, India, Australia, Brazil, the UAE (but not Russia or China) and in time, it would simply replace the UN. Another idea of his is to establish some kind of League of Democracies, which could conduct military operations in various parts of the planet, without the agreement of the UN Security Council.
* Translator Note: All of the Ivo Daalder quotes come from this interview in Kommersant, in Russian. http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1832913?stamp=634591068535488106