Europeans Ambivalent about Obama’s Retreat on Missile Defense
From the desk of Soeren Kern on Thu, 2009-10-01 09:11
Indeed, a consistent theme running through European commentary has been bafflement that Obama would abandon the missile defense system without receiving anything from Russia in return. A number of commentators have raised the issue of Obama’s lack of experience in statecraft. In Britain, for example, the Daily Telegraph published an editorial titled: “Barack Obama is Gambling with Europe’s Security.” Another article is titled: “President Barack Obama is beginning to look out of his depth.” It says: “His credibility is seeping away, and it will require concrete achievements rather than more soaring oratory to recover it.”
European politicians are also lining up to exploit Obama’s perceived naïveté. In Germany, for example, Guido Westerwelle, who could well be Germany’s next foreign minister after September’s national elections, reacted to Obama’s decision on missile defense by calling on the German government to capitalize on the moment to exert pressure on Obama to remove all US nuclear weapons based in Germany by 2013.
Most newspapers have also taken notice of the rather shabby way in which Obama shared the news of his decision with his counterparts in Poland and the Czech Republic, the two American allies most directly affected by Obama’s decision: By way of a telephone call placed at well past midnight local time. Some newspapers have pointed to the fact that Obama made the announcement on September 17, the same date on which the Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939.
Obama’s diplomatic clumsiness may boost anti-Americanism in Eastern Europe, the only region in Europe where the United States is actually liked. In Poland, for example, the defense ministry said Obama’s decision was “a catastrophe for Poland.” Aleksander Szczyglo, a former Polish defence minister, called the US action a “historic error.” And former Polish president Lech Walesa said: “Americans have always cared only about their interests, and all other [countries] have been used for their purposes. [Poles] need to review our view of America.”
In Germany, meanwhile, Green Party leader Jürgen Trittin said Obama’s decision was an embarrassment for German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party. “Both Merkel and the CDU are disgraced because they always welcomed and supported Bush’s missile defense plans.” Obama’s decision is “a slap in the face to the chancellor,” Trittin said.
More than anything else, however, Obama’s decision seems to be reinforcing the growing perception that the United States is a power in terminal decline. This view has been repeated over and over in print and broadcast media across the continent in recent weeks. It has also been caricatured by political cartoons, such as one published in Britain by the center-left newspaper The Independent, which mockingly declares: “Star Wars: The Empire Downsizes.”
What follows is a review of select European commentary on Obama’s missile defense decision.
In Britain, the center-right Telegraph writes: “With this decision, President Obama has changed the strategic landscape for US-Russian relations. He will now try to secure Russia’s support to bring greater pressure on Iran within the UN Security Council. It remains to be seen, however, whether the Russian government will see this step as warranting a reciprocal concession on their part, especially towards Iran. The Russian leadership perceives the world in a “zero-sum” context, where a weakening of America represents a strengthening of Russia. President Obama will soon learn whether his strategy of engagement will bear fruit or whether, like Iran itself in recent months, America’s other opponents are simply not willing to bow to the new policy of engagement any more than they were to previous policies of confrontation.”
The center-right Times of London, in an analysis titled “What will Obama get back from Russia after ditching missile defense?”, writes: “Vladimir Putin could be forgiven for having a celebratory shot of vodka with breakfast this morning at news that President Obama plans to abandon America’s missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. His implacable opposition to the project has paid off, leaving the Kremlin emboldened in its drive to re-establish a strategic “sphere of privileged interests” over Russia’s former Soviet satellites. By trading the loyalty of Poland and the Czech Republic to satisfy Russia’s security concerns, the United States is signaling that it no longer contests Moscow’s right to assert its interests in Eastern Europe…. For Mr Putin, the lesson of today’s decision is clear. Intransigence pays dividends because the US and the European Union lack the patience or determination to face Moscow down. That is a lesson that will send alarm bells ringing in the corridors of power of Russia’s former Soviet dominions.”
In France, the center-left Le Monde, writes: “The decision of the American President is one of especially high stakes. If Barack Obama follows through with his stated decision, he may hope for reciprocal gestures from Moscow, particularly in terms of Iran…. But will Moscow want to respond to this American overture? Poland, the Czech Republic as well as the Baltic States, the countries most affected by the U.S. change of heart, are very skeptical…. Barack Obama will have to allay their concerns.”
In Germany, the center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: “Obama’s biggest challenge is this: He has to quell the suspicion that he has buckled in the face of Russia. And he has to succeed in doing this not only in the US Congress, but also when it comes to America’s allies in Eastern Europe. They are afraid that some people in Moscow will be able to misinterpret the decision to cancel the missile defense shield as a sign of weakness and to be emboldened to promote their interests with tanks in other places in the same way they did in Georgia.”
The Financial Times Deutschland writes: “What is truly unusual about Obama’s decision is that he is taking a huge step toward Russia without having any guaranteed quid pro quo to show for it. It is a rare thing for a US president to make a down payment like this. It either shows great courage in the face of risk or pure naiveté. Just how risky Obama’s bet is can be seen from Moscow’s celebrations of the cancellation of the missile plans. Diplomats are pounding their chests and boasting that Obama’s buckling was the logical consequence of their refusal to compromise on this issue. For Obama, it will be a very expensive decision. In terms of domestic politics, he is exposing himself to accusations of being a wimp and damaging the country’s security. In terms of foreign politics, he is snubbing two allies—the Czech Republic and Poland—who view the cancellation of the missile shield as a betrayal. It would be dangerous for Obama if people got the impression that he had genuflected before the Russians. He has no way of guaranteeing that they will respond to his gesture of friendship. Moscow has the upper hand now.”
The center-right Die Welt writes: Obama’s decision “does raise the question of whether this policy is naïve and, in the end, dangerous. The other problem is that it leaves much of Central Europe disappointed.… People there are afraid of being abandoned again. Sandwiched between Western Europe (Germany, in particular) and Russia, the nations in Central Europe were for a long time the ping-pong ball of foreign powers. Having been admitted into NATO and the EU and having become visible partners with the US raised hopes in these countries that they really counted for something. After Obama’s failure to appear at the ceremony marking the anniversary of the beginning of World War II in Gdansk, this will be the second blow to their hopes. Those who continue to believe that the freedom movement in the 1980s was right will enthusiastically welcome Obama’s decision. But they need to remember just one thing: Communism came to a peaceful end because America was both civil and well-armed.”
The Berliner Morgenpost writes: “The governments in Warsaw and Prague, which sought the deployment of the missile shields despite strong resistance in their own countries, have been duped by Obama. Their confidence in America’s reliability has not been strengthened. They may retaliate if America announces, after 2015, that it actually does want to put an entirely new missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic.”
The center-left Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes: “Poland and the Czech Republic have exposed themselves to a lot of criticism from their neighbors to the west, serious threats from Russia and the skepticism of their own populations. But, from now on, they will give a lot more thought to working closely with America on such controversial issues and the consequences that doing so entails. Obama might have been thinking that canceling the plan would elicit some sort of quid pro quo from Moscow. The Russians are very happy about it, less because it can (presumably) improve US-Russian relations, and more because it means that Russia's tantrum has had its desired effect. … Russia’s claim that the planned missile defense system harmed strategic stability was never meant seriously. It was rather intended as propaganda and a way to influence a public that was very touchy about this issue. So this means it pays to play hardball.”
The thread is a bit old, but
Submitted by Andrew X on Thu, 2009-10-08 19:35.
The thread is a bit old, but I feel that I (as a Yank) have to chime in on Edenfelt's nuttiness.
First off, the idea that Africa is "united" is laughably absurd. Yes, there are people out there trying to united the continent "based on race", but they are failing miserably, and the Rwanda extreme shows the kind of things that exist all across the continent. In your words, I am rather reminded of the Marxist idea of 1914, that all the working classes would unite against the warmongers sending them into war against each other. Of course, the working classes bought into nationalism, far and away above class consciousness, and marched to war against each other with flags flying and a song in their hearts.
Likewise, in Africa, and Europe.... nationalism, or tribalism, will conquer "racial solidarity" every time. Bank on it. This does not preclude a solid and well deserved movement against totalitarian Islam. Because that is not about race, it is about culture and ideology (wich is nationalism). I can only hope.
As for "America separating into white states" and similar such unmitigated nonsense, it's really not worthy of rebuttal, a simple "ain't gonna happen" will suffice. And it is not race that sets Americans against each other right now, it is the abominable post-60's post-modernist deconstructionist philosophies that despise, and yes, deconstruct, the culture of Western Civilization. I can only hope Mr. Obama is some sort of heaven sent person who will so thoroughy discredit that whole line of thinking that it can be lowered to the level where we can pound a stake in its heart. (Probably wishful thinking, but that's another post.)
Finally, I do agree with the commenter who said conservative America is moving, at least moderately, isolationist. Europe, do not underestimate your role in bringing Obama to where he is. I won't detail it here, I think it is farily obvious, and I think your opinions of Bush resonated more deeply than even you know in the States, so now you have the anti-Bush. Well done, I suppose.
Now.... live with it. Because your media and political culture, for certain, get no sympathy from me, much less any desire to defend them for you.
Time to grow up.
Pan African # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2009-10-05 23:34.
@ Edensfelt
Obviously, there have been attempts at regional organisation on the African continent, like on any other continent. Your citations do NOT illustrate or prove that these organisations are/were based on "race", rather than on geography (and, to be sure, on some degree of resentment against former 'rulers' as well). Furthermore, there is no need to try to prove that many Africans are 'racist'. Racism is quite universal and, in my opinion, at least as (and probably more) prevalent in nonwestern societies than in the West of today. None of this has anything to do with my main point, which was that Africans are NOT "united in any meaningful sense" to tackle serious problems together.
It is not because the current Prime Minister of Russia and the President of China say that they are 'friends', that you should believe that. The same applies to Sarkozy and Brown, as well as to Khadafi and...(for instance) the President of Ethiopia!
What followed after Your "secondly" ...is pure conjecture. You are entitled to your opinions, but do not be so sure that what you were writing is...factual.
No # 4
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2009-10-02 22:49.
@ Kapitein
I seem to be increasingly collecting 'cautions' these days. That might indeed suggest some degree of "Palin's-lingo". After all, while she is far from being my favorite American politician, I do enjoy her refreshing red-flag impact on the leftist pc-media, which does not take kindly to direct language of calling a spade a spade and which does not want certain dogmas questioned.
You are only "Putin's pal" to the extent that you have on a number of occasions 'explained' his numerous deplorable actions without exercising the proper value judgment. Likewise, I caution you against misplaced 'respect' based on perverted values.
In the last sentence of your posting on "multilateralism" it was unclear what was meant by "this". Hence I could not fathom what it was that you were drawing attention to.
@marcfrans:
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Fri, 2009-10-02 17:39.
Putin is not my "pal", and I caution you against picking up Sarah Palin's lingo...
Moreover, I was drawing attention to anti-American sentiment rather than mere policy criticism by Western European politicians and the press, a topic close to your heart.
No # 3
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2009-10-02 16:05.
@ Edensfelt
What is the Pan African Federation? Is that the African Union with Khadafi as its titular head? You cannot possibly think that Africans are "united" today in any meaningful sense (except perhaps in 'hating' European colonialism of a century ago) ? Could you?
The list of ONGOING atrocities on the African continent is a very long one (Sudan, Somalia, Eastern Congo....). State collapse in Zimbabwe and elsewhere is not to be sneered at either. Explain, please, how the Africans "united", and putting aside their "tribal differences", are dealing with these very pressing afflictions?
@ Kapitein Andre
If we are talking about 'selective multilateralism' (i.e. coalitions-of-the-willing or of the like-minded) then perhaps you might POTENTIALLY have some point. The world is anxiously awaiting to see how the EU and/or NATO-under-Obama+Rasmussen are ACTUALLY going to contain your pal Putin, the Chinese Politbureau and the ayatollahs. My prediction is that it is 1979 all over again. But, it is only a prediction, and surely we will talk again soon.
I mistakenly thought that by "multilateralism" you meant the United Nations and its affiliated bureaucracies and 'baronies'. That would roughly amount to letting the inmates run the asylum, in terms of defining arbitrary 'law' and setting the confines for individual freedom in the world. And with franco-Belgian Louis Michel potentially replacing the current Latin-American communist at the helm of the UN General Assembly, the asylum might actually become less boring and more hilarious.
"What is the Pan African
Submitted by Edensfelt on Sun, 2009-10-04 22:25.
"What is the Pan African Federation? Is that the African Union with Khadafi as its titular head? You cannot possibly think that Africans are "united" today in any meaningful sense (except perhaps in 'hating' European colonialism of a century ago? Could you?"
Firstly, I was pointing out that African nations had formed a political alliance based on race which is something white nations need to do.
Secondly, whether or not this brings peace and harmony, isn't the crux of the point I was making. Alliances based on common genetic origins and closely related heritages and cultures ensure that outgroups would not be permitted to trespass onto the territories of member states within the alliance nor would any such outgroups be permitted to demand via so-called human rights entitlement, permanent residence, citizenship, voting, accommodation, education, healthcare and employment either.
See below:
Quote: "Pan-Africanism as an intergovernmental movement was launched in 1958 with the First Conference of Independent African States in Accra, Ghana. Ghana and Liberia were the only sub-Saharan countries represented; the remainder were Arab and Muslim. Thereafter, as independence was achieved by more African states, other interpretations of Pan-Africanism emerged, including: the Union of African States (1960), the African States of the Casablanca Charter (1961), the African and Malagasy Union (1961), the Organization of Inter-African and Malagasy States (1962), and the African-Malagasy-Mauritius Common Organization (1964)."
"In 1963 the Organization of African Unity (OAU) was founded to promote unity and cooperation among all African states and to bring an end to colonialism; it had 53 members by 1995. The OAU struggled with border disputes, aggression or subversion against one member by another, separatist movements, and the collapse of order in member states. One of its longest commitments and greatest victories was the end of apartheid and the establishment of majority rule in South Africa. Efforts to promote even greater African economic, social, and political integration led to the establishment in 2001 of the African Union (AU), a successor organization to the OAU modeled on the European Union. The AU fully superseded the OAU in 2002, after a transitional period."
"The list of ONGOING atrocities on the African continent is a very long one (Sudan, Somalia, Eastern Congo....). State collapse in Zimbabwe and elsewhere is not to be sneered at either. Explain, please, how the Africans "united", and putting aside their "tribal differences", are dealing with these very pressing afflictions?"
Like I said, I'm perfectly aware of the ongoing civil unrest and various atrocities taking place on that continent.
The point I was making is that African nations have an alliance with one another based on race which doesn't of itself guarantee peace. However, it's not so much African nations who are at war with one another, but the tribes within each nation.
Interestingly, Islam figures in these inter tribal disturbances quite prominently too.
@marcfrans RE: Multilateralism
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2009-10-01 20:25.
Multilateralism and greater American isolationism mean that more responsibility is passed on to the EU and NATO, whether the issue be missile defense or an international crisis. As Europe wants more of a leadership role, it now has it with the Obama administration in the White House. Whether Europeans care about rogue missiles enough to annoy Russia, or whether this is another dig at the United States, remains to be seen...
No # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2009-10-01 19:31.
@ Traveller
Yes, he does have a "transformation agenda" together with his wife. That agenda will likely fail.
I don't know which one is more living in fantasyland than the other: the Kapitein who claims that "multilateralism means more resposibility...", or Edensfelt who thinks that Europeans are "capable of uniting under one banner based on race"?
"Edensfelt who thinks that
Submitted by Edensfelt on Thu, 2009-10-01 19:42.
".....Edensfelt who thinks that Europeans are "capable of uniting under one banner based on race"?
Nobody ever thought that Africans would put their tribal differences aside and unite under a Pan African Federation, but they did based on race and heritage.
This turn of events is good
Submitted by Edensfelt on Thu, 2009-10-01 19:03.
This turn of events is good for native Europe, not bad! Only the traitorous cabal of Marxist Liberal tinpot dictators currently lording it over the European Union, will see this as an ominous development and so they damn well should. It means, their grip on power is being steadily loosened day-by-day.
America is no longer representative of white European nations. Race is the new deciding factor on who rules what. America is lost to white Europe and must be let continue on its inevitable road to collapse and demise apart from the possibility of white Americians securing separate states for themselves and their present and future progeny.
Indigenous white Europeans are more than capable of uniting under one banner (based on race) and that includes Russia and every other ancestral white homeland of Eastern Europe. After all, non-whites do it all the time and nobody dares call them racist.
Well, ancestral white Europe must start making it so that nobody dare call native whites racist for sticking up for their own homelands, peoples, heritages, beliefs, cultures and traditions just like non-whites are doing in support of their self-interests in their respective lands of origin.
RE: European Ambivalence
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2009-10-01 18:03.
It is utter folly to link the cancellation of the ABM system to appeasement of or quid pro quo with Russia. I covered the more important factors in a prior comment to Mr Handlery. No strategic US nuclear weapons are based in Germany; those that Herr Westerwelle is referring to are tactical and were intended for use against Warsaw Pact ground forces. Given the end of the Cold War, and marked US/NATO conventional superiority over Russia, these weapons are unnecessary. Herr Westerwelle would do well to focus on nuclear issues of more import, such as Germany's aging power plants and incidents of leaks.
The new ABM system was intended to protect Europe from Iranian and North Korean missiles, not Central Europe from Russian aggression. Nor has the United States abandoned its voluntary responsibility, as a global sea-based ABM system with a far greater coverage and probability of success will destroy rogue missiles a few minutes after launch.
If the Obama administration continues with the deployment of Patriot missiles in Poland, Russian airpower will be severely checked, although a Russo-Polish conflict is unlikely. Warsaw, more than Prague, followed Washington's lead mainly in order to gain economic/labor concessions.
Russia's victory in the South Ossetia War was due mainly to Georgian incompetence and overwhelming Russian numerical superiority. Russia could never achieve the same result in the Ukraine, and the Baltic republics are under NATO protection, as (I might add) are the Czech Republic and Poland.
Europeans wanted change in American foreign policy; they got it. Western Europeans hoped for a successor to Bush that would take a more isolationist and multilateral approach to foreign policy. The Germans were deepening economic links with Russia and the majority of Czechs and Poles were opposed to the ABM installations. If Europe was truly concerned with the threat of rogue missiles, rather than castigating the United States at every available opportunity, they would take a leadership role in missile defense. Multilateralism means more responsibility not less...
No
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2009-10-01 16:07.
@ Traveller
There are other possibilities. Obama is neither an idiot nor does he want to destroy the US. He does, however, foolishly want to 'transform' US society.
Frank Lee would be quite right to question why the US would want to build a missile defense system in Europe when the populations concerned are largely opposed to such an action, or when even the European 'right' (Westerwelle) wants to remove the US nuclear deterrent from Germany. Given the weaker defense posture of the current leftist US Administration, it is difficult enough to fund the US missile defense system being built in Alaska and California.
What we are witnessing is a return to greater US isolationism, which is in line with the American public's sentiments. This isolationism may be hidden somewhat behind the empty rethoric of leftist internationalism and UN-globalism of the Obama+HClinton team, but it will play out mainly through greater economic protectionism (under pressure of the trade unions) and through a weaker defense posture.
While Obama will likely turn out to be another Jimmy Carter, with similar disastrous consequences for both Americans and many nonAmericans alike, chances are that the next conservative revival in America will be more isolationist and less internationalist than the previous Reagan 'revolution' was.
@ marcfrans
Submitted by traveller on Thu, 2009-10-01 16:39.
I am not so sure. The man doesn'ty know anything about recent history and how Reagan beat the Soviets. All he has to do is look how Reagan did it. Since he doesn't and since I don't believe either that he is a total idiot, I don't have another option.
Trying to appease the Russians is historically nonsense, it has never worked with the autocrats.
Exactly what does "transform" mean for a dynamic country of 350 million people?
Again stupid.
So does he have an agenda with his wife?
Either
Submitted by traveller on Thu, 2009-10-01 10:14.
Obama is a total idiot or he has a "destroy the US" agenda.
There are no alternative options here.
Or Both
Submitted by KO on Thu, 2009-10-01 15:48.
He's a left-liberal. I.e., he is an idiot and has an anti-American agenda, but these are both disguised by the liberal world-view.