Prague
A year ago in Prague, when President Obama set out his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, the world was so taken aback that it immediately shoved the Nobel Peace Prize into his hand. Now he has returned to the same spot to give his words real meaning by signing a disarmament treaty with his Russian counterpart.
The Treaty of Prague may be called historic because, for the first time, a small step toward nuclear disarmament is being made. But it is still no more than a first step and, in this case, the first step is the easiest. The treaty cuts some military excess away without touching the actual nuclear superiority of either superpower. With what remains, the U.S. and Russia can still lead each other, any other country and, if worst comes to worst, the rest of the world to damnation.
Nevertheless, in the short term the diplomatic gesture toward improving relations between Russia and the U.S. is just as important. That gesture was deliberately made in Prague, in the former Eastern Bloc and therefore also in the region where the U.S. now wants to deploy its missile shield, fiercely disputed by Russia. It is significant that this dispute has not stood in the way of the Prague signing. If that also means that Obama has succeeded in getting Moscow to adopt a cooler approach toward Iran and its insane nuclear ambitions, that could have a much greater geopolitical impact than dismantling nuclear warheads.
Meanwhile, the loser in the Prague nuclear spring is, again, the European Union. The E.U. is not even invited to Obama’s dinner with Eastern European leaders — neither Barroso, nor Van Rompuy, and certainly not Foreign Affairs Chief Ashton. A reformed Europe with one voice? It simply does not seem to interest Obama. The picture of a new American leadership is therefore emerging, not as stolidly unilateral as before, but as one that does not necessarily look to Europe for allies in the first instance. Perhaps Herman Van Rompuy should give Obama his card one more time when he finally gets his (short) tête à tête with the president next week.
The Treaty of Prague may be called historic because, for the first time, a small step toward nuclear disarmament is being made. But it is still no more than a first step and, in this case, the first step is the easiest. The treaty cuts some military excess away without touching the actual nuclear superiority of either superpower. With what remains, the U.S. and Russia can still lead each other, any other country and, if worst comes to worst, the rest of the world to damnation.
Nevertheless, in the short term the diplomatic gesture toward improving relations between Russia and the U.S. is just as important. That gesture was deliberately made in Prague, in the former Eastern Bloc and therefore also in the region where the U.S. now wants to deploy its missile shield, fiercely disputed by Russia. It is significant that this dispute has not stood in the way of the Prague signing. If that also means that Obama has succeeded in getting Moscow to adopt a cooler approach toward Iran and its insane nuclear ambitions, that could have a much greater geopolitical impact than dismantling nuclear warheads.
Meanwhile, the loser in the Prague nuclear spring is, again, the European Union. The E.U. is not even invited to Obama’s dinner with Eastern European leaders — neither Barroso, nor Van Rompuy, and certainly not Foreign Affairs Chief Ashton. A reformed Europe with one voice? It simply does not seem to interest Obama. The picture of a new American leadership is therefore emerging, not as stolidly unilateral as before, but as one that does not necessarily look to Europe for allies in the first instance. Perhaps Herman Van Rompuy should give Obama his card one more time when he finally gets his (short) tête à tête with the president next week.
Previous article![]( "China-U.S. Trade War Must Be Avoided")
