G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Bush Woos Europe
By Frida Berrigan
Created Apr 11 2008 - 8:25am
The big news of President George W. Bush's trip to Europe last week was not
the multiple agendas that he juggled or the feathers he ruffled. It was the
news he left behind. President Bush tried to set the domestic agenda for the
week, with a pre-dawn press conference on his way to the airport last
Monday. The sleepy First Couple stood side-by-side, as Bush told Congress
they had "a lot of work" while he was gone. He even left a to-do list: pass
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, act on his Federal Housing
Administration reform proposals, and agree to the Colombia free trade
agreements.
None of these to-dos was crossed off the list while he was gone. Instead
last week's newspapers were crammed with gloom and doom: the ACLU's outing
of the White House torture memos, the military's failures in Basra, fallout
from the Bear Sterns bailout, and (perhaps most dramatically) hearings on
how the Pentagon awarded a fledgling, shady company millions of dollars to
procure ammo to the Afghan military (much of which was substandard).
Bush was not in Bucharest, Romania, Ukraine and elsewhere just to dodge the
bad news. He had a few to-dos of his own: win endorsement for missile
defense deployments in Poland and Czech Republic, wring new military
commitments for Afghanistan out of European leaders, and set Ukraine and
Georgia on the road to NATO membership.
The fact that most of these agenda items would irritate, threaten or provoke
Russia was surely incidental.
Bush Wins Two out of Three: Sort Of
The president achieved one of his goals: Europe is sending more troops to
Afghanistan. France will commit 700 and the United Kingdom will send 800.
Poland has already committed 400 soldiers. Most of these troops will be
dispatched to the calmer eastern areas of the country, while U.S. Marines
will go south into Taliban-held areas.
President Bush pushed hard, trying to reframe NATO as a force in the war on
terrorism, saying [1]: "NATO is no longer a static alliance focused on
defending Europe from a Soviet tank invasion. It is now an expeditionary
alliance that is sending its forces across the world to help secure a future
of freedom and peace for millions."
And he called on members of NATO to "shoulder the burden necessary to
succeed."
Recent reports from Afghanistan indicate that this is a heavy burden indeed.
The State Department's International Narcotics Control Strategy Report [2],
issued in March, asserts that "narcotics production in Afghanistan hit
historic highs in 2007 for the second straight year." And another March
report, the UN Report to the Secretary General [3], found that "the Taliban
and related armed groups and the drug economy represent fundamental threats
to still-fragile political, economic and social institutions."
These were hard-won commitments. Defense Secretary Robert Gates pushed [4]
Europeans for more troops willing to "fight and die" in testy meetings
leading up to the NATO summit.
The Real Prize
But the real prize of President Bush's week on the road was NATO's
endorsement of U.S. plans to base 10 missile interceptors in Poland and
establish a tracking radar site in the Czech Republic. He argued for the
sites using his trademark combination of dark, dire and unsubstantiated
predictions, referring at one point to U.S. intelligence that "Iran could
test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. and
all of Europe." This may strike fear into many hearts, but Iran would need
seven to 10 years to develop a crude nuclear device - assuming that
diplomatic efforts don't end its pursuit of nuclear weapons in the mean
time. And adapting such a weapon for use with a ballistic missile would take
years longer.
No one is breaking ground on an interceptor bed or a radar site tomorrow.
Legislatures in both countries need to sign off, and Russian concerns will
need to be addressed. According to The New York Times, Condoleezza Rice and
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spent a dinner debating the wording
of the Strategic Framework Agreement [5]the two countries would sign. The
question at hand was whether Russia's concerns would be "assuaged" or
"eased." Note to word buffs: they went with "assuaged." Webster's defines
"assuaged" as "to lessen the intensity of something that pains or
distresses." On the other hand, "eased" implies a more active engagement:
"to free from something that pains, disquiets or burdens."
The line reads: "Yet, [Russia] appreciates the measures that the U.S. has
proposed and declared that if agreed and implemented such measures will be
important and useful in assuaging Russian concerns."
And then there is the issue of what NATO "endorsement" means. While the
White House interprets the NATO statement as a green light, it can also be
seen a sophisticated form of punting. NATO merely endorsed a principle and a
process. The principle is: "ballistic missile proliferation poses an
increasing threat to allied forces, territory and populations," and that the
system could help protect allies. The process is: NATO members should
explore ways in which the planned U.S. project can be linked with future
missile shields elsewhere, and leaders should come up with recommendations
to be considered at their next meeting in 2009.
Implicit in this process is a hope that a proposal deferred is a proposal
denied, and that the proposer will just go away. Bush responded to this
interpretation by saying: "You can cynically say it's kicking the can down
the road. I don't appreciate it." But, kicks or no kicks, by the time NATO
members come back together in 2009 there will be a new U.S. president and
perhaps a new set of foreign policy priorities that make the controversial
plan a moot point. Europeans are wise to be wary of a program that costs
U.S. taxpayers more than $8 billion a year, has not been adequately tested,
does not work, fans international tensions, and locks in an
every-nation-for-itself approach to nuclear proliferation.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report [6]released last month sums
up U.S. investment in missile defense: "Since the 1980s, Department of
Defense has spent more than $100 billion on the development and early
fielding" of missile defense systems and "it estimates that continued
development will require an additional $50 billion between 2008 and 2013."
The report continues to note that "the tests done to date have been
developmental in nature and do not provide sufficient realism" to "fully
determine whether the ballistic missile defense system is suitable and
effective for battle." This typical bureaucratic understatement,
nonetheless, contains crucial information. In plain English, the GAO is
saying: The United States has spent $100 billion in the last 25 years and we
will spend half again as much in the next five and likely fail to produce a
system that is suitable or effective.
Expand or Die
Bush's two "wins" were offset by one loss, The President championed
Ukrainian and Georgian aspirations to join NATO, but Europe spurned his
calls and conferred the sought-after access only to Albania and Croatia. In
this decision, NATO opted not to further antagonize a Russia that vowed to
put Kiev and Tbilisi in the cross hairs of its nuclear missiles targets. In
Hang Separately: Cooperative Security between the United States and Russia,
1985-1994 [7], Leon V. Sigal writes: "In February 1990, after talks with
West Germany's foreign minister, Secretary of State Baker had assured
Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that 'NATO's jurisdiction would not shift one
inch eastward from its present position.' The Bush administration [of George
Herbert Walker Bush] began backing away from that pledge almost immediately.
The Clinton administration reneged on that commitment altogether when it
decided to expand NATO into Eastern Europe." This might seem like ancient
history. But it is not so long ago, and Moscow has not forgotten Baker's
assurances, even if everyone else in Washington has.
While President Bush was off in Europe, the economy got worse, the American
people got more fed-up, and the war raged on. It is surely unpleasant to
face all that bad news.
After spending most of the last eight years avoiding international travel,
the president contracted a case of the wanderlust and has a least three more
globe-trotting trips planned for the next nine months. No matter what
continent he is on, the question is: in his final months, is the president
still doing more harm than good?
Copyright (c) 2008, Institute for Policy Studies
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Frida Berrigan
Created Apr 11 2008 - 8:25am
The big news of President George W. Bush's trip to Europe last week was not
the multiple agendas that he juggled or the feathers he ruffled. It was the
news he left behind. President Bush tried to set the domestic agenda for the
week, with a pre-dawn press conference on his way to the airport last
Monday. The sleepy First Couple stood side-by-side, as Bush told Congress
they had "a lot of work" while he was gone. He even left a to-do list: pass
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, act on his Federal Housing
Administration reform proposals, and agree to the Colombia free trade
agreements.
None of these to-dos was crossed off the list while he was gone. Instead
last week's newspapers were crammed with gloom and doom: the ACLU's outing
of the White House torture memos, the military's failures in Basra, fallout
from the Bear Sterns bailout, and (perhaps most dramatically) hearings on
how the Pentagon awarded a fledgling, shady company millions of dollars to
procure ammo to the Afghan military (much of which was substandard).
Bush was not in Bucharest, Romania, Ukraine and elsewhere just to dodge the
bad news. He had a few to-dos of his own: win endorsement for missile
defense deployments in Poland and Czech Republic, wring new military
commitments for Afghanistan out of European leaders, and set Ukraine and
Georgia on the road to NATO membership.
The fact that most of these agenda items would irritate, threaten or provoke
Russia was surely incidental.
Bush Wins Two out of Three: Sort Of
The president achieved one of his goals: Europe is sending more troops to
Afghanistan. France will commit 700 and the United Kingdom will send 800.
Poland has already committed 400 soldiers. Most of these troops will be
dispatched to the calmer eastern areas of the country, while U.S. Marines
will go south into Taliban-held areas.
President Bush pushed hard, trying to reframe NATO as a force in the war on
terrorism, saying [1]: "NATO is no longer a static alliance focused on
defending Europe from a Soviet tank invasion. It is now an expeditionary
alliance that is sending its forces across the world to help secure a future
of freedom and peace for millions."
And he called on members of NATO to "shoulder the burden necessary to
succeed."
Recent reports from Afghanistan indicate that this is a heavy burden indeed.
The State Department's International Narcotics Control Strategy Report [2],
issued in March, asserts that "narcotics production in Afghanistan hit
historic highs in 2007 for the second straight year." And another March
report, the UN Report to the Secretary General [3], found that "the Taliban
and related armed groups and the drug economy represent fundamental threats
to still-fragile political, economic and social institutions."
These were hard-won commitments. Defense Secretary Robert Gates pushed [4]
Europeans for more troops willing to "fight and die" in testy meetings
leading up to the NATO summit.
The Real Prize
But the real prize of President Bush's week on the road was NATO's
endorsement of U.S. plans to base 10 missile interceptors in Poland and
establish a tracking radar site in the Czech Republic. He argued for the
sites using his trademark combination of dark, dire and unsubstantiated
predictions, referring at one point to U.S. intelligence that "Iran could
test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. and
all of Europe." This may strike fear into many hearts, but Iran would need
seven to 10 years to develop a crude nuclear device - assuming that
diplomatic efforts don't end its pursuit of nuclear weapons in the mean
time. And adapting such a weapon for use with a ballistic missile would take
years longer.
No one is breaking ground on an interceptor bed or a radar site tomorrow.
Legislatures in both countries need to sign off, and Russian concerns will
need to be addressed. According to The New York Times, Condoleezza Rice and
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spent a dinner debating the wording
of the Strategic Framework Agreement [5]the two countries would sign. The
question at hand was whether Russia's concerns would be "assuaged" or
"eased." Note to word buffs: they went with "assuaged." Webster's defines
"assuaged" as "to lessen the intensity of something that pains or
distresses." On the other hand, "eased" implies a more active engagement:
"to free from something that pains, disquiets or burdens."
The line reads: "Yet, [Russia] appreciates the measures that the U.S. has
proposed and declared that if agreed and implemented such measures will be
important and useful in assuaging Russian concerns."
And then there is the issue of what NATO "endorsement" means. While the
White House interprets the NATO statement as a green light, it can also be
seen a sophisticated form of punting. NATO merely endorsed a principle and a
process. The principle is: "ballistic missile proliferation poses an
increasing threat to allied forces, territory and populations," and that the
system could help protect allies. The process is: NATO members should
explore ways in which the planned U.S. project can be linked with future
missile shields elsewhere, and leaders should come up with recommendations
to be considered at their next meeting in 2009.
Implicit in this process is a hope that a proposal deferred is a proposal
denied, and that the proposer will just go away. Bush responded to this
interpretation by saying: "You can cynically say it's kicking the can down
the road. I don't appreciate it." But, kicks or no kicks, by the time NATO
members come back together in 2009 there will be a new U.S. president and
perhaps a new set of foreign policy priorities that make the controversial
plan a moot point. Europeans are wise to be wary of a program that costs
U.S. taxpayers more than $8 billion a year, has not been adequately tested,
does not work, fans international tensions, and locks in an
every-nation-for-itself approach to nuclear proliferation.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report [6]released last month sums
up U.S. investment in missile defense: "Since the 1980s, Department of
Defense has spent more than $100 billion on the development and early
fielding" of missile defense systems and "it estimates that continued
development will require an additional $50 billion between 2008 and 2013."
The report continues to note that "the tests done to date have been
developmental in nature and do not provide sufficient realism" to "fully
determine whether the ballistic missile defense system is suitable and
effective for battle." This typical bureaucratic understatement,
nonetheless, contains crucial information. In plain English, the GAO is
saying: The United States has spent $100 billion in the last 25 years and we
will spend half again as much in the next five and likely fail to produce a
system that is suitable or effective.
Expand or Die
Bush's two "wins" were offset by one loss, The President championed
Ukrainian and Georgian aspirations to join NATO, but Europe spurned his
calls and conferred the sought-after access only to Albania and Croatia. In
this decision, NATO opted not to further antagonize a Russia that vowed to
put Kiev and Tbilisi in the cross hairs of its nuclear missiles targets. In
Hang Separately: Cooperative Security between the United States and Russia,
1985-1994 [7], Leon V. Sigal writes: "In February 1990, after talks with
West Germany's foreign minister, Secretary of State Baker had assured
Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that 'NATO's jurisdiction would not shift one
inch eastward from its present position.' The Bush administration [of George
Herbert Walker Bush] began backing away from that pledge almost immediately.
The Clinton administration reneged on that commitment altogether when it
decided to expand NATO into Eastern Europe." This might seem like ancient
history. But it is not so long ago, and Moscow has not forgotten Baker's
assurances, even if everyone else in Washington has.
While President Bush was off in Europe, the economy got worse, the American
people got more fed-up, and the war raged on. It is surely unpleasant to
face all that bad news.
After spending most of the last eight years avoiding international travel,
the president contracted a case of the wanderlust and has a least three more
globe-trotting trips planned for the next nine months. No matter what
continent he is on, the question is: in his final months, is the president
still doing more harm than good?
Copyright (c) 2008, Institute for Policy Studies
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson