I still find it difficult to "like" foreign policy articulations on Facebook. The mark of a closet Luddite?
Basescu and Biden: Two takes on the talking
Vice President Biden and Romanian Prime Minister Traian Basescu had a little phone chat earlier this week. The conversation topics covered the gamut. The Romanian press writes:
According to the Presidency, Traian Basescu spoke about the "importance of U.S. investments in our country, with a particular focus on areas that would generate economic development, as research technologies, IT industry, car industry, agriculture, food and petroleum equipment industry. "
"The U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden stressed the great potential of Romania's economic growth in the upcoming years if it continues to develop a predictable and transparent business environment," the Presidency informs.
My translation: Basescu wants US investment and job creation in return for providing the Deveselu Air Base as the location for American's missle defense system, while Biden chuckles and reminds Basescu that southeastern Europe needs to work on corruption and sound market rules before law-abiding American corporations decide to invest in the Romanian economy.
Aerial view of Deveselu.
A security slam-dunk or a double dribble?
From a security standpoint, Basescu calls the bilateral deal a slam-dunk that will give Romania "the highest security level in its history." This is true only to the extent the political cost does not exceed the net security gain. If, for example, the presence of the Aegis system is unpopular with key member states of the European Union, Romania will lose important political goals which open European markets and borders to Romanian citizens.
Ultimately, Romanian external security cannot be purchased at the price of internal economic stability and rising prosperity. This is a recipe that demands dictators rather than democrats at the helm. Very few democracies will agree to vote for leaders that do not bring (or pretend to bring) economic opportunity.
The external security guaranteed to Romania by the Aegis system is also rather hazy in the post Cold War world where terrorist groups and loose networks of criminals pose primary security threats to civilian populations. The arrival of Aegis to Romanian shores will add a new star to the maps of terrorists and criminals- a star that makes Romania more attractive to extremists and groups wishing to destroy US security and power. Clearly, southern Romania will become more vulnerable to terrorists from southeast Asia, the Caucuses, as well as the Middle East. This cost might be a higher price than Basescu imagined he would have to pay, a cost that includes increased outlays for border patrol, maritime and port security, and a plethora of bureaucratic headaches.
Missile defense from Bush to Obama
Though Romanian officials say Deveselu was chosen because it fulfilled the extensive list of 120 requirements needed to guarantee the full security of the system, obviously other reasons probably played an important role in the calculations of US government representatives. To understand these reasons, it helps to review the history of the missile defense plan which gained traction under the administration of the George W. Bush.
The Bush administration left office after having articulated a plan to use long-range interceptors based in Poland to counter a threat from Iran and North Korea. Russia opposed the plan on the grounds that the system could target Russian warheads or undermine the Kremlin's deterrence strategy.
The Obama administration articulated a different plan for European missile defense, one designed to counter the threat of short- to medium-range missiles. The reasons given for this shift included 1) greater effectiveness 2) ability to counter a threat from Iran earlier after launch. In 2009, Obama finalized his change in policy with a four-part plan. In 2011, the US officials began negotiating the location of the European base in part 2 of Obama's four-part plan.
Critics of new plan say that a clear signal was sent of US policy shifting on the basis of Russian demands. Others doubt whether the administration could build an effective shield under the current timetable.
Putin overseeing previous snap check in June of this year. Photo credit: Alexei Nikolski
The mystery of the disappearing Russian opposition
Obviously, Russian sentiment has played an important part in the Obama administration's missile defense plan. As the need to coordinate anti-terrorism measures between the US and Russia increases, a shiny, happy Putin is in the best interests of US diplomats and statesment. The Pentagon, of course, would also like to ensure the continuing security of aging Soviet nukes.
At the beginning of 2013, Russian officials were still huffing and puffing over the message and consequences of the European missile defense system. But the tune changed in March, when the Obama administration decided to bolster its missile defense systems in the Pacific region, allegedly in response to threats issued by North Korea. This decision to focus on the Pacific region essentially canceled the final phase of the missile system opposed by the Russians. All signs pointed to stronger (or, at least, less strained) bilateral ties between the US and Russia.
One month later, in April 2013, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin gave a speech at the Russian embassy in London that insinuated improved US-Russia relations had nothing to do with Russia's decreased interest in European missile defense. Speaking for the Russian government, Rogozin asserted:
“We have solved the issue of penetrating the missile shield. We regret that the United States waste their money on missile defense and compel us to do the same. The missile shield is nothing for us, it’s a bluff. It poses no military threat, but remains a political and economic problem."
By August, Rogozin's cat clearly emerged from the clear plastic bag in which he had placed it. A senior Russian official (probably Rogozin) declared that the US missile defense system is no match for the new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that Russia tested in the middle of August. Rogozin, who oversees the Russian defense industry, hailed the tests as a success and called the ICBM "a missile defense killer".
So here's my question- Should we believe him? Clearly, it is in Russia's strategic interest to maintain its ability to provide security as a regional power. In a similar vein, it is in the Obama administration's interest to allow Russia to say whatever it wants so long as relations and cooperation between the two government continues without friction. Is Rogozin bluffing as the State Department smiles and agrees not to blow his cover? Is an ICBM the real reason for Russia's policy shift on missile defense?
I'm inclined to believe the Obama administration has offered a different set of very compelling carrots to Russian officials- carrots best seen with the proper security clearance. It remains to be seen how the backroom diplomacy is conducted with respect to missile defense. Until then, Putin's recent rocket-rattling is getting loud enough to ruffle feathers.
Yesterday, Putin oversaw a snap check of Russia’s nuclear deterrent, aerospace defenses and strategic aviation. According to the Russian state press agency:
“The exercise involved launches of ballistic missiles, drills by air defense and missile defense units,” Kremlin press spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, adding that all practice targets had been destroyed. The Defense Ministry has confirmed the launches of two silo-based and sea-based ballistic missiles apiece as part of the snap check drills.
Possible costs and benefits of Deveselu location
In existence since 2004, Aegis BMD is now operating on 28 Navy ships and with a number of allied nations. U.S. allies with Aegis capability include the Japan Self Defense Forces, Spanish Navy, the South Korean Navy (see article), the Royal Australian Navy, Italy, Denmark and unnamed others.
The purported benefits of stationing Aegis at Deveselu include:
- Kogalniceanu Air Base and the Port of Constanta become strategic infrastructures for the United States (President Basescu).
- Job creation for the small Romanian locale of Deveselu (Mayor Gheorghe Beciu).
- US money, specifically 400 million for locating the anti-missile system at Deveselu in Romania, with an additional USD 20 million for the anual functioning costs, missiles not included.
- Increased security from Middle Eastern states as well as Russia, a longtime security fear of Romanian leaders.
The drawbacks and gray areas include:
- Questions of US forces stationed permanently in Romania- 200 U.S. military forces will be deployed at the former air base at Deveselu. The unit remains under the command of the Romanian Air Force.
- Popular opposition from nuclear disarmament groups and organizations, including the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
- The Missile Defense Agency will be working with Lockheed-Martin to build and design the station. It's not clear how Romanian companies will be involved.
- Decreased security as a result of terrorists who target missile defense systems as proxy to targeting US homeland.
- Diplomatic chill between Romania and Russia.
- Increased threats from Russian interests who feel regional power is threatened by Aegis system with possibility of closer ties between Russia and Iran.
- Problems with European allies who feel Romania is seeking a special relationship with US at the expense of improved relations with EU members.
- Political fall-out destabilizing Romania's EU accession.
The Royal Australian Navy tweeted this photo of Aegis tower being
added to the good ship Hobart.
SOURCES:
Kris Osborn, "Pentagon builds Aegis ashore MD sites in Romania", DODBuzz, 8 October 2013
"US assures Russia on Romanian missile base", The Moscow Times, 5 May 2011
Razvan Chiruta, "Deveselu- comuna care apara Europa", Romania Libera, 4 May 2011
Elias Groll, "Russia no longer worried about European missile defense systems", 16 April 2013, Passport Blog
Herszhenhorn and Gordon, "US cancels part of missile defense that Russia opposed", New York Times, 16 March 2013
"US missile shield no threat to Russia- Deputy PM", RIA Novosti, 16 April 2013
"Ministrul apararii in SUA", Romania Libera, 19 October 2013
"CND condemns plans for US missile defence base in Romania", CND Cymru, 4 May 2011
"Pentagonul de la Deveselu, disputat de investitori straini si romani", Ziua Cargo, 15 June 2012
"Russia inspects US missile defense base in California- Report", RIA Novosti, 23 August 2013
