Majority in both Poland and Czech Republic oppose participation in US missile Shield.

Of course the fact that a majority oppose the shield is no guarantee that the installations will not go ahead. No doubt the Polish and Czech government expect some reward from the US and unless there is real political trouble they will go ahead.


More Czechs Reject U.S. Missile Shield
July 24, 2007
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - People in the Czech Republic are increasingly opposed to participating in a United States defence plan in Central Europe, according to a poll by CVVM. 65 per cent of respondents reject the construction of a missile defence shield base in their territory, up four points since May.

An additional 74 per cent of respondents want the government to call for a nationwide referendum on this matter.

In December 2002, U.S. president George W. Bush announced plans for the development of initial defence capabilities, which include ground-based and sea-based missile interceptors, as well as sensors located in space. Washington has explained the project as a means to defend the U.S. and its European allies from a potential attack by Iran or North Korea.

In January, the U.S. issued a formal request to place a radar base in the Czech Republic—in a military area southwest of Prague—as well as 10 interceptor missiles in Poland.

The Czech Republic—a member of both the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—is expected to start negotiations with the U.S. on the construction of the radar base soon. Some EU officials have asked the Czech Republic to include the continental group in these discussions, but the government of Czech prime minister Mirek Topolanek has so far declined to do so.

On Jul. 19, Henry Obering, the head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, said there are other options for the project in case Poland and the Czech Republic cannot participate, adding, "We have other countries that are not exactly as optimal but they would be sufficient. Public opinion (in Poland and the Czech Republic) is an interesting thing but you cannot let it to become the guiding factor in decision making."

Here is the Polish poll:

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Poles Still Reject U.S. Missile Shield
July 20, 2007
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Although more people in Poland favour their country’s participation in a defence program with the United States, a majority is still against it, according to a poll by CBOS. 55 per cent of respondents oppose the deployment of an anti-missile shield in Polish soil, down five points since June.

In December 2002, U.S. president George W. Bush announced plans for the development of initial defence capabilities, which include ground-based and sea-based missile interceptors, as well as sensors located in space. Washington has explained the project as a means to defend the U.S. and its European allies from a potential attack by Iran or North Korea.

In January, the U.S. issued a formal request to place a missile defence radar base in the Czech Republic—in a military area southwest of Prague—as well as 10 interceptor missiles in Poland.

On Jul. 16, Bush met with Polish president Lech Kaczynski in Washington. Kaczynski reiterated the country’s decision to participate in the defence plan despite Russia’s fierce opposition to it, declaring, "The shield will exist because for Poland this will be a very good thing. (...) It is aimed at defence of our democracies against the countries who might have, or already do have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. (...) And so I do hope that all this project, the whole project will be completed successfully."

Polling Data

Do you support or oppose the deployment of an anti-missile shield in Poland?

Jul. 2007
Jun. 2007

Support
28%
26%

Oppose
55%
60%

Not sure
17%
14%



Source: CBOS
Methodology: Interviews with 1,064 Polish adults, conducted from Jun. 29 to Jul. 2, 2007. Margin of error is 3.2 per cent

Putin Freezes Defence Pact.

This is not surprising. If everyone knows that the defence system is not a threat to Russia why is Russia reacting so strongly. I think that the opposite is closer to the truth that everyone knows that the system is directed against Russia and not Iran. It seems that the US and NATO are bound to restart the Cold War and there will be a renewed arms race as well. This will do nothing for European security.


'Grave concern' as Putin freezes defence pact

27apr07

A DISPUTE over US plans to station anti-missile bases in eastern Europe escalated dramatically today following Russia's call for a freeze of a key European defence treaty.


In heated NATO talks in Oslo, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that Russia was to halt its application of the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty and could even pull out if the allies did not endorse it.

"It means that we will halt the compliance of our obligations under the treaty," he told reporters, after launching what was described by a US official as a 20-minute "diatribe" against NATO.

His remarks came after Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a state of the nation address, called for the freeze in response to the US missile shield plans.

The CFE treaty was signed in 1990 in Paris by the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the former Warsaw Pact to limit troop and hardware deployments in Europe.

It was adapted in Istanbul in 1999 following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, in order to limit deployments on a country-by-country basis.

NATO states have refused to ratify the new pact on the grounds that Moscow has failed to honour commitments made in Istanbul to withdraw Russian forces from the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Moldova.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Russia's involvement in the CFE was a treaty obligation "and everyone is expected to live up to treaty obligations."

She had earlier complained that Russia was applying Cold War logic to the missile defence issue, and said any suggestion the system was directed at Moscow was "ludicrous".

In Washington, a White House official who refused to be named, said: "We regret President Putin's comments today on the CFE Treaty which inaccurately portray US and NATO adherence to the treaty."

Mr Lavrov insisted that "the balance has been impaired for a long time and seriously in favour of NATO. The CFE was a very valuable treaty and that has been made valueless".

He expressed hope that the allies would eventually ratify the adapted pact, but said: "I didn't hear today any kind of desire for the urgency of that.

"All I heard today was the same old tune about the Istanbul commitments, about the situation of Moldova and Georgia."

Mr Lavrov said that Russia, one of only four countries to have ratified the adapted CFE, found itself "in a position where we don't want to be the only actors in a theatre of the absurd."

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who described the two-hour session of the informal NATO Russia Council as lively, said the allies were deeply concerned by Moscow's move to place a "de facto moratorium" on the treaty.

"That message was met by concern, grave concern, disappointment and deep regret because the allies are of the opinion that the CFE treaty is one of the cornerstones of European security," he said.

US officials said Lavrov had railed against NATO over issues ranging from enlargement to the planned missile shield extension, which will see 10 interceptors based in Poland and a radar tracker in the Czech Republic.

"He listed a litany of complaints about NATO," a senior official said, but added that the remarks may have backfired on Russia by consolidating support among the allies for the shield, meant to counter "rogue states" like Iran.

Mr Lavrov noted that the shield left gaps in its coverage of Europe, with Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Turkey undefended.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Lavrov tried to use this gap as proof that Washington was not interested in defending Europe, but he was met with "universal" opposition from NATO representatives.

Earlier today, Dr Rice urged Moscow to "be real" about the system and reiterated that it posed no threat to Russia.

"Let's be real about this," she said.

"The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic return is purely ludicrous and everybody knows it."

AFP

US missile defence chief warn Czechs re Iran!

This sounds bizarre. Russia is right to regard the deployment as aimed at a potential RUssian threat or even against a RUssian defensive move if attacked. The Czechs simply make themselves into a target and they become a tool of the US empire's schemes.


US missile defence chief warns of Iran threat
Published: Monday April 23, 2007



The head of the US missile defence agency, General Henry Obering, warned of the "growing Iranian missile threat" Monday during a visit here aimed at convincing Czech officials to host part of the US anti-missile shield.

"We believe that this radar in the Czech Republic will protect European allies and our deployed forces in the region against what we see as a growing Iranian missile threat," Obering said at a joint press conference with the leader of the main opposition Social Democrats, Jiri Paroubek.

Obering underlined the crucial role of the Czech Republic and Poland in Washington's plans to defend against the perceived threat of a possible missile attack ordered by Tehran.

"We did an analysis of the trajectories from Iran into Europe and from Iran into the US and it turned out that Poland and the Czech Republic are the two nations ideal for the interceptors and long-range radar, respectively," he added, referring to the plans to place different parts of the shield in the neighbouring Central European countries.

"From a strategic perspective, if we begin to join together US capacities and NATO capacities, and even Russian capacities, it will begin to diminish the value of these ballistic missiles in the eyes of countries such as Iran," Obering added.

Obering's Czech visit comes on the same day as US Defense Secretary Robert Gates launched a charm offensive in Moscow aimed at overcoming Russia's fierce opposition to the extension of its missile defences into Central Europe.

Washington faces a different challenge in Prague. The centre-right Czech government announced last month that it was willing to negotiate with the US over hosting a radar station, but it has no guaranteed majority in parliament which will have the final say.

Obering was unable to budge former prime minister Paroubek from altering his party's current opposition. "We do not agree with siting this part of the anti-missile system until it will be part of a NATO defence system and we want this question to be put to a referendum," Paroubek said.

Washington has held out the prospect of eventually linking its missile defence system with one still being worked out at NATO headquarters.

The US proposal has split Czech public opinion with polls in the former communist, Soviet-bloc country, showing a majority of Czechs are opposed to a US base on their soil.

Obering earlier met with President Vaclav Klaus and was later due to answer lawmakers' questions at a lower house defence committee and attend the government's State Security Council, the top forum for discussions on national defence.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Russian View: Missile Defence system in Eastern Europe

This should be read along with the US view as the two form an interesting contrast. The conclusion of this article seems remarkable to me. On what basis Primakov is optimistic about the US being transparent about their purposes completely eludes me. Anyway he seems to think that a confrontation is quite avoidable.

Another Confrontation?
By Yevgeny Primakov, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences



The United States' plan to deploy the components of its anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems near Russia's frontiers has created one of the most acute problems in Russian-American relations today. Evidently, this "umbrella" can have a broader purpose in addition to America's formally stated task of neutralizing possible missile strikes from Iran and North Korea. According to defense experts, better places than the Czech Republic and Poland could have been selected to accomplish that task.
Our military's extremely negative reaction to the building of the U.S. ABM system in proximity to Russian territory is fully justified. Yet, it seems that Russia's main argument against this move by the U.S. has yet to be heard. Thus far, on Russia's part there have only been oral statements that we will find an adequate but asymmetric response to the U.S. move: ABM systems are no obstacle to the Topol-M and Bulava-30 strategic missiles that Russia is adding to its armory. Such statements from Russia are quite relevant, because they show to the Russian people that the containment functions of our strategic missiles are not undermined by the ABM system being built by the Americans. At the same time, these statements are meant to demonstrate to the Americans that we do not intend to get involved in an arms race.

However, can we lay the matter to rest here and say: "Gentlemen, military leaders of the United States, let us consider the issue closed, as you declare that the anti-missile system you are building is not directed against Russia. We are not worried about your ABM system because if need be, our missiles will bypass them." This issue brings to mind a following anecdote: A school teacher, a zealous atheist, entered her class and said: "Children, there is no God. Letus proceed to mock Him!" An amazed student asked: "But if there is no God, then why should we mock him?"

However, an American ABM system near our frontiers is not anecdotal material, as it creates a third positional zone for the U.S. anti-ballistic missile system. Yes, for the U.S., not for NATO. And this is happening in Eastern Europe, which, to all appearances, does not seem to have a say in any decision to use this zone for military purposes. Formerly, front-line American forces in Europe did not have a strategic component. Now it is being created. This essentially means that in Washington's opinion, Europe is still in need of a strategic American presence 15 years after the end of the Cold War.

This standpoint signifies a qualitative shift in American military thinking, and it raises a number of questions. For example, how will the American ABM system work? Will this involve pinpoint nuclear strikes? If so, this move will violate the Founding Act signed by, among others, President Bill Clinton in 1997, and it will entail deploying nuclear weapons in the countries that have recently joined NATO.

Who will determine the order of priority for covering specific facilities, and how will this be determined? Experts believe that a positional zone for an ABM system presupposes the creation of an appropriate infrastructure, including underground silos for the missiles. One more question: Won't the creation of such positional zones for America's ABM systems lead to the militarization of outer space?

The answers to these and related questions affect all inhabitants of Europe, as well as the world. I am aware that the present situation differs from the one that we lived through in the 1980s, when the Cold War was still raging. Then, the Soviet leaders made a mistake by deploying medium-range missiles (SS-20s) in Eastern Europe. The U.S. responded by deploying in Western Europe Pershing-2 missiles, which could reach Moscow in six to eight minutes. This gave the U.S. an obvious advantage. SS-20 missiles could not be regarded as strategic weapons since U.S. territory was out of their reach, while Pershing-2s could be used against Moscow as a first-strike weapon.

When the tension began to reach a boiling point, the two sides realized the need for a military detente. The Nuclear Forces Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles of 1987 (INF) was signed in Washington. The Soviet Union signed the Treaty despite the fact that it would have to destroy more missiles than the U.S. The Treaty remains in force to this day. However, each party to the Treaty may withdraw from it by virtue of exceptional circumstances, thereby jeopardizing its supreme interests.

By its present actions, the U.S. is arguably undermining INF Treaty. By deploying an ABM system in the Czech Republic and Poland, the U.S. is repeating the mistake the Soviet Union made by deploying SS-20s in Eastern Europe.

Moscow has already voiced the opinion that Washington has created a situation where Russia might have to pull out of the INF Treaty. This would be a prelude to the deployment of our medium-range missiles targeted at the United States' "third missile frontier" near our borders, especially as the U.S. recently declared that it would not confine itself to Poland and the Czech Republic.

Those obedient nations where the U.S. is deploying its ABM system fail to realize that they are getting involved in a most dangerous game. This is far better understood by NATO's old members, for example Germany, whose leaders have announced it will not accept the U.S. making unilateral decisions on matters of key importance to the world community, without first consulting with its allies, and that includes Russia. It seems to me that the U.S. behaves in this manner not only because it disdains Europe's opinions, but also because it realizes that it is difficult, if not impossible, to push such perilous decisions through NATO, where the principle of consensus reigns.

How can we get out of this impasse? It seems to me that we could get out of it, as we did in the 1980s, by refraining from creating a new front of U.S.-Russian confrontation. Russia and the United States can break the impasse by holding talks to secure complete transparency of American intentions in building a third ABM positional zone near our borders. Once such transparency has been attained, there would be no need for Russia to exceed the limits to ensure adequate counter measures.

Missile Defences in Poland, Czech republic to counter Iran and North Korea!

Imagine the US says that not only can the system in Czech Rep. and Poland meet threats from Iran but also North Korea. It is fortunate Rice is black so you can't see her blush when she makes such statements. Surely the threat is Russia. Do they think Putin is really that gullible to think it is not. Maybe Putin should try placing such a defence in Cuba.


Missile shield in Poland, Czech Republic to counter Iran: Rice by David Millikin
Wed Feb 21, 3:06 PM ET



BERLIN (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said a planned missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic was designed to counter a threat from Iran and posed no danger to Russia.


"We have a growing Iranian missile threat and we need to be able to deal with that," Rice told reporters after talks with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

"Everybody understands that with a growing Iranian missile threat which is quite pronounced there need to be ways to deal with that problem.

"These missile systems are for purposes having to do with post-9/11 threats," Rice said.

Russia has strongly objected to the US plan to station missile interceptors and a radar system on its western borders, in countries which used to be part of the communist bloc.

But Rice said Poland and the Czech Republic "make their own decisions" and they had decided to participate in the system.

The top US diplomat said she regretted that a high-ranking Russian general, Nikolai Solovtsov, had threatened this week that the two former Soviet states would be targetted by Russia if they hosted the system.

"I think it is unfortunate that the Russian head of strategic rocket forces would come out and say that somehow Poland and the Czech Republic would now be on the target list of Russia.

"I think that was an extremely unfortunate comment," Rice said.

Rice, who in her previous role as national security advisor was closely involved in long-range defence strategy, dismissed suggestions that the planned system posed a threat to Russia.

"Anyone who knows anything about this will tell you there is no way that 10 interceptors in Poland and radar sites in the Czech Republic are a threat to Russia, that they are somehow going to diminish Russia's deterrent of thousands of warheads."

Washington says the system would also be able to intercept attacks from North Korea.

The threat from the Russian general prompted an angry response from Poland and the Czech Republic.

"It is clearly an attempt to intimidate," Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski said on Tuesday.

The row over the missile shield is one of a series of disputes between the United States and Russia which also include disagreements over the expansion of NATO.

Russian President Vladimir Putin used a recent speech to a high-level security conference in Munich to attack the US as a reckless "unipolar" power which he said had made the world more dangerous by pursuing policies that were fuelling an arms race.

France, a US partner in NATO, called on Wednesday for a "true dialogue" over the shield.

Iran on Wednesday ignored a UN deadline to suspend its nuclear reprocessing activities, prompting Rice to urge the Islamic republic to reconsider its defiance and accept an offer of better relations with Washington.

She re-affirmed a US offer, first made last May, to end a 27-year rupture in American-Iranian relations if they comply with the UN conditions.