Andy Rowell, 20 June 2007 

Earlier this month after the British newspaper, The Times, interviewed Russia’s President Putin, it ran a terrifying headline that “Putin raises spectre of nuclear war in Europe”.

In the interview, Putin warned America that its proposed deployment of a new anti-missile system across Eastern Europe could prompt Russia to retaliate and point its own missiles at European targets. If political events spiraled it could even trigger a nuclear war, warned Putin gravely.

Putin was quoted as saying: “It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the US is located in Europe and will be threatening us, we will have to respond. This system of missile defence on one side and the absence of this system on the other increases the possibility of unleashing a nuclear conflict.”

Putin was reacting angrily to plans by the Americans to site a new anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic, as part of its proposed new system to destroy missiles coming from countries it sees as a threat.

So who exactly is the threat the missiles are supposedly guarding the US from? In March this year, the US Missile Defence Agency published yet another report on America’s missile defence system. It argued that although over 20 countries now had a ballistic missile capability, it was mainly concerned with “rogue states” that “view ballistic missiles as a means for gaining or maintaining their own freedom of action.” The two main “rogue states” mentioned were North Korea and Iran.

The report warned that by 2015, Iran could have developed a long-range ballistic missile that could reach the US. However currently there were “currently no defenses in Europe that could “engage intermediate- to long-range ballistic missiles launched from Iran”. To rectify this, it proposed building a series of interceptors located in Eastern Europe at a cost of $2.5 billion. The report concluded that “European missile defense deployments will help defend the United States, allies and friends against the growing threat from Iran.”

Others have reached similar conclusions. The US think-tank, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, also argues that: “Given favourable conditions, Iran is currently on track to be able to extend its ballistic missile capabilities to include Southern Europe, North Africa and South Asia by 2005-2010 and possibly the continental United States by 2015”.

Not everyone agrees that Iran is such a threat, though. One such dissenting voice is Kaveh Afrasiabi, a former consultant to the United Nations, and author of the forthcoming book, “Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts versus Fiction.”

Although “Iran has an active missile program and its military leaders have been publicly boasting of steady progress in the range, precision and sophistication of their missiles,” argues Afrasiabi, this does not mean as the US claims “that Europe is at risk of a missile attack from Iran”.

Afrasiabi outlined several reasons why Iran would not attack Europe: Iran’s missile system was essentially developed for short-range conflict – eg Iraq.  He argued that most experts agree that the Iranian missile system has reached its maximum potential and cannot be stretched into developing longer range missiles.

Its option of acquiring such missiles from abroad is “limited and unlikely in light of the UN sanctions”. Furthermore, the country has not developed nuclear missile technology, let alone nuclear warheads. In conclusion, argues Afrasiabi, “Iran's missile threat to Europe remains a remote possibility and the Bush administration's defense shield in Eastern Europe an unnecessary overreaction.”

So who is overreacting? The Russians or Americans? In Europe and America, far from questioning the need for such a system, most political and media commentators have criticized the response of the Russians. “Kick the Russians out,” ran the unequivocal editorial in the right-wing Daily Telegraph, just before the meeting of the G8 leaders in Germany, which included Putin. “Russia's membership of G8 is becoming awkward. Membership of G8 bestows a credibility on the Putin regime which its actions no longer merit. It is time to go back to G7”.

The Sun newspaper – the most widely read daily newspaper in Britain– ran an editorial called “Russian bullies”. The paper fumed that “Whatever Vladimir Putin says about America's anti-missile shield, there is no military threat to Russia from either the EU or the USA.” It lambasted Putin who “is part of an old Communist elite still simmering over the collapse of the Soviet Union”. It then went on to compare him to the tyrant Stalin.

Putin was attacked in the US too. His threats was a move based on “paranoia, fear, idiocy, and the begrudging acknowledgement of western power” wrote Caspar Weinberger Junior, a right-wing commentator and the son of the late U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it was “ludicrous” for Russia to view the missile shield as a strategic threat to Moscow. “Let's be real about this and realistic about this,” Rice told reporters. “The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous and everybody knows it”.

Politicians in Britain also dismissed the idea that somehow a defensive military shield could be seen as a threat. Speaking on the BBC’s programme “Question Time”, Julia Goldsworthy, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, argued that a “defensive shield is just defensive – so it can’t be a threat.”

However, the US plans are being seen as a threat and a provocative act. Yuri Fedotov, the Russian ambassador to London has argued that “In military and strategic doctrine, the shield is always accompanied by the sword. You cannot divide them.” Other Russian officials have said that the defense plans could “seriously complicate” efforts to solve the stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme.

The Chinese are worried too. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Bush’s missile plan “aroused great concern and attention”. She continued “China believes that the impact of a missile defense system on strategic defense and stability is not conducive to mutual trust of major nations and regional security. It may also give rise to a proliferation problem.”

The Chinese concern is not without merit. It was back in 2001 when the US withdrew from the American Russian Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that specifically forbade testing and deployment of a missile defense system. “I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks”, said Bush at the time

Also at the time the then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat, argued that American withdrawal from the ABM treaty could “rupture relations with key countries around the world”, and raises serious questions about future arms races involving other countries. Bush countered that said that the decision “to withdraw from the treaty will not in any way undermine” America’s relationship with Russia or Russian security.

But the missile defence system has undermined America’s relationship with Russia, even though Bush has now offered to work with the Russians. Putin even sprang a surprise on Bush at the G8 Summit by offering for the system to be sited in Azerbaijan.

Both these responses miss the fundamental point. By building a missile defence system, America is both anticipating and encouraging an arms race. If it is acceptable for America to have nuclear missiles – any country can legitimately argue it is acceptable for them to have them too. Why should American be able to defend herself and not say, Iran?

So any defence system built by the Americans in Europe is therefore not a defence system at all. It is one that promotes and even encourages others to build their own weapons. Perversely it could even encourage a country to try and attack American and breach the system. Imagine the coup to be able to say you beat Bush’s missile shield.

Surely it would be much more constructive to build an international peace process that agrees about the reduction – and eventual withdrawal - of all nuclear weapons. America could engage Iran and North Korean in any such process. President Bush could even take the lead on it before he leaves office.

To put in an international political process that would rid the world of nuclear weapons would be a truly positive legacy for any American president. It would be a remarkable one for President Bush. In contrast, at the moment Bush will leave a far more violent, polarized and insecure world, where more people than ever hate America for its foreign policies across the world, but especially in the Middle East. And no Missile Defence System will prevent that spreading.