Page 1 of
4 In the trenches of the new cold
war By M K Bhadrakumar
Curiously, it had to be on the fateful day
when Russia had begun brooding over former
president Boris Yeltsin's final, ambivalent legacy
that US Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrived on
his first official visit to Moscow.
Hardly
had Yeltsin, archetypal symbol of post-Soviet
Russia's "Westernism", departed than Gates, one of
spymaster John le Carre's "Smiley's people",
arrived on a mission to let the Kremlin
know
that no matter Russian sensitivities, Washington
was going ahead with its deployment of
missile-defense systems along Russia's borders.
Gates reminded the Russians how little had changed
since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Yet how different Russia is in comparison
with the Soviet Union that Gates spied on. Yeltsin
was being buried in Moscow's Novodevichy Cemetery,
the final resting place of Russia's heroes, beside
the grave of Raisa Gorbacheva, the wife of
Yeltsin's bitterest political adversary Mikhail
Gorbachev - something inconceivable in the annals
of Soviet history.
Gates' mission was
clear-cut. The Russians must realize that in the
past two decades since Gorbachev wound up the
Warsaw Pact and Yeltsin unilaterally disbanded the
Soviet Union, Russia never was, never could have
been, and just wouldn't be accommodated in the
common Western home - certainly not until the home
was thoroughly refurbished with American decor,
for habitation by post-modern Europeans.
The missile-defense controversy has gone
beyond a mere Russian-US spat. It is assuming
three distinct templates. First, profound issues
of arms control have arisen, and along with that
the role of nuclear weapons in security policies
gets pronounced. Most certainly, the controversy
relates to the United States' trans-Atlantic
leadership in the post-Cold War era. And, finally,
quintessentially, it is all about the United
States' global dominance, of which the unfolding
Great Game in the Eurasian theaters forms the
salience.
The ABC of missile defense
The missile-defense controversy assumed a
habitation and a name on April 18, when the US
State Department released in Washington a "Fact
Sheet" detailing the technical parameters of the
deployments that the US is contemplating in Poland
and the Czech Republic. It said that the US is
planning to field 10 long-range ground-based
missile interceptors in Poland and a mid-course
radar in the Czech Republic to counter the growing
threat of missile attacks from the Middle East.
The Fact Sheet revealed that the
approximate size of each interceptor missile site
(in Poland) and radar site (in the Czech Republic)
will be 275 hectares and 30 hectares respectively,
and that US military and civilian personnel
numbering 200 and 150 would be deployed in each of
the interceptor sites and radar sites. It said
the interceptor missiles will be stored in
underground silos in Poland and each base will
have facilities for electronic equipment for
secure communication, missile assembly, storage,
maintenance and security. "They [missiles] carry
no warheads of any type, relying instead on their
kinetic energy alone to collide with and destroy
incoming warheads. Silos constructed for
deployment of defensive interceptors are
substantially smaller than those used for
offensive purposes. Any conversion would require
extensive modifications, thus precluding the
possibility of converting the interceptor silos
for use by offensive missiles," it said.
The Fact Sheet explained that intercepts
occur at very high altitudes (above the
atmosphere) with the vast majority of the threat
warhead and the interceptor reduced to small
pieces that burn on re-entry. "A few small pieces
may survive, but pose little threat to people and
property. The odds of damage or injury from an
intercept are very small. European interceptors
would not be used for flight tests, and would only
launch during an actual attack on the United
States or Europe," it said.
The US
statement insisted that the missile-defense system
has been proved effective through repeated testing
and that 15 of the last 16 flight tests were
successful.
The Fact Sheet attempted to
substantiate the main US arguments in the missile
defense controversy, which are: (a) the European
missile shield is meant to counter possible
attacks from Iran or North Korea; (b) the US is
puzzled by Russia's anxiety, since the rockets to
be deployed in Central Europe are no match for
Russia's arsenal; (c) Russia itself should be
worried about the missile threat from "rogue
states"; (d) the US is prepared to cooperate with
Russia on missile defense; (e) the US is open to
the idea of merging the missile shield with the
Russian system; (f) Washington would like Moscow
to take part in research and development, though
it is unlikely the Russians will consider such
cooperation; and (g) the US has endeavored to be
"transparent" and is prepared to hold
consultations with Russia to explain its case for
the deployments in Central Europe.
Prima
facie, the US stance sounds eminently reasonable
and conciliatory. But the Russians point out that
ever since December 13, 2001, when President
George W Bush announced that the US was
unilaterally pulling out of the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Washington
has followed a consistent pattern of deploying
along Russian borders radars capable of spotting
missile launches and sending targeting data to
interceptors. (The first such radar, code-named
Have Stare, was stationed in Norway.)
Russia says these deployments by far
predated Bush's "axis of evil" thesis or the
threat perceptions of "rogue states" such as Iran.
Russian experts explain that neither Iran nor
North Korea could possibly have the scientific or
technical capability within the next 20-30 years
to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBMs) capable of reaching the US. Thus Moscow
concludes that the real purpose of the US
deployment is to cover the European part of Russia
as far as the Urals.
Russia reacts
First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov
told The Financial Times in an interview last
week, "Since there aren't, and won't be, any ICBMs
[with North Korea and Iran], then against whom,
against whom, is this system directed? Only
against us."
And
on Thursday, Russia announced that it is
considering withdrawing from the Soviet-era
Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, under which
NATO and the Warsaw Pact agreed to reduce their
conventional armed forces at the end of the Cold
War. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) had failed to implement the treaty,
President Vladimir Putin said, and unless it did
so, Russia would dump it unilaterally. Putin
described the US defense plan as a "direct
threat".
Moscow doubts the sincerity
of US pledges to be cooperative with Russia.
Ivanov said, "I see no reasons for that,"
referring to the logic of Russian-US cooperation
in missile defense. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
derisively said at a press conference on Tuesday
in Luxembourg, "We are against any proposal that
turns
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
