International Affairs

Obama’s smart strategic move on target

U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to scrap a planned anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic on Sept. 17 was a bold gesture that may help improve relations between the United States and Russia. It will also have positive repercussions for European peace and security. Many Western European governments, which had been cool from the outset to a unilateral U.S. project they regarded as gratuitiously provocative towards Russia, greeted the American decision with relief.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to scrap a planned anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic on Sept. 17 was a bold gesture that may help improve relations between the United States and Russia. It will also have positive repercussions for European peace and security. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was quick to welcome the decision, calling it “correct” and “brave.”

Many Western European governments, which had been cool from the outset to a unilateral U.S. project they regarded as gratuitiously provocative towards Russia, greeted the American decision with relief.

In a major speech in Brussels on Sept. 18, an obviously pleased NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared that “it is possible for NATO and Russia to make a new beginning and to enjoy a far more productive relationship in the future.” Outlining his vision of harmonized global defense architecture, the former Danish premier said that “NATO wants Russia to be a real stakeholder in European and international security … a partner in resolving the great issues of our time.”

A “new beginning” and partnership is both possible and desirable. The Ronald Reagan-Mikhail Gorbachev vision of a pan-European entente suddenly has a new lease on life. It appears certain that Russia will respond to the American decision by scrapping plans to deploy medium-range missiles in Kaliningrad, a Baltic enclave which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. It is to be hoped that Moscow will also take a second look at its nuclear cooperation with Iran. In addition, Moscow can further upgrade its already essential role in keeping the U.S. mission in Afghanistan viable.

While Washington should not expect great rewards for correcting a mistake – and the missile shield has always been a deeply flawed concept – Moscow would be well-advised to work with the U.S. when and where possible so as to maintain the cooperative momentum.

If this happens, the obvious next move for the Obama Administration would be to call off further NATO eastward expansion into Ukraine and Georgia, neither one of which possesses the qualifications for membership in any case.

There is a better option for Kyiv and Tbilisi than NATO accession: a declaration of neutrality. Such a move would promote peace, stability, and the reduction of tensions throughout Europe. It would also be a powerful expression of full sovereignty on Ukraine’s part.

U.S. policy on this issue has already undergone a significant shift—from enthusiastic advocacy of NATO expansion under former U.S. President George W. Bush to qualified support for Ukraine’s “Euro-Atlantic integration” on condition that Kyiv meets membership criteria. The shift reflects the more nuanced approach of Obama’s team, motivated by its evolving strategic priorities. A major new report by the American Institute in Ukraine points out: The quiet acceptance by a growing segment of Western decision-makers on both sides of the Atlantic that there will be no NATO expansion along the Black Sea coast any time soon is a welcome development. Encouraging an impoverished, practically defenseless nation – such as Ukraine – to join a military alliance against the superpower next door, thereby stretching a nuclear tripwire between them, had never been a sound strategy.

Obama’s challenge is to strike a balance between the desire not to be seen as appeasing Russia and the need to improve U.S.-Russian relations. He can square this circle and achieve a diplomatic coup by obtaining positive responses from Moscow now, while preparing his next move. That move should be to take NATO expansion definitively off the table.

This would be a low-cost decision, with pluses heavily outweighing minuses. Western Europe—especially Paris, Berlin and Rome—would support such a move even more enthusiastically than it has greeted the scrapping of the missile shield.

It would disabuse discredited Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili of any dreams of revenge, underwritten by the West, for last year’s failed aggression. It would help Ukraine redefine it strategic priorities in the aftermath of Yushchenko’s imminent departure after the Jan. 17 presidential election.

Above all, it would pave the way for a genuine Northern Alliance that includes Russia, Europe (European Union and non-European Union, including Ukraine) and North America, as all three face similar threats in the decades ahead.

Anthony T. Salvia, who worked in the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and also for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, is executive director of the Kyiv-based American Institute in Ukraine. He can be reached at salvia@aminuk.org. The organization’s website is www.aminuk.org. The privately funded U.S. non-profit organization focuses on American-Ukrainian relations, especially Ukraine’s possible accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance.

For further information

Contact: Anthony T. Salvia
Email: salvia@aminuk.org
Organisation: American Institute in Ukraine
Web Site: http://www.aminuk.org

---

CrikeyMedia.com is not responsible for the content of any press-release published on this site. The sole responsibility for content remains with the author. CrikeyMedia.com reserves the right to remove or edit any content, without notice, that it deams inappropriate or harmful in any way to either CrikeyMedia.com or any other person or organisation. Any complaint against the content should be directed to the site Adminstrator

All content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.

© 2009 Crikey Media.