U.S. Will Build Missile Shield, EU Allies Told

On the Bush administration’s maiden voyage into the choppy waters of transatlantic relations, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld put European allies on notice Saturday that the Pentagon will press ahead with a national missile defense despite their objections.

Rumsfeld and a chorus of U.S. Congress members also used the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy to warn European Union states developing their own military force against draining defense resources from NATO, which steered them safely through the Cold War.

The polite but pointed observations illustrated the gulf that has opened between U.S. and European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization since the collapse of the totalitarian threat behind the Iron Curtain and a growing assertiveness that has come with a more united and stable Europe.

As much as Rumsfeld sought to ease fears that the missile defense could rekindle an arms race with Russia, European defense officials tried to allay Washington’s worries that an EU force will undermine NATO.

Although the Munich gathering is an informal affair where participants, including the Russians, can air views and brainstorm about U.S.-European security objectives, this year’s session was keenly watched by politicians, government leaders, ambassadors and policy analysts across Europe. It was their first exposure to the priorities and political posture of the Bush administration.

In addition to differences over missile defense and the EU drive to create an armed force outside NATO, the day of speeches and debates also exposed rifts over U.S. participation in Balkan peacekeeping missions and the speed and scope of NATO and EU expansion into Eastern Europe.

Rumsfeld, already acquainted with many of the 250 conferees from his first stint as defense secretary under President Ford and his tenure as U.S. ambassador to NATO in the 1970s, struck a relaxed and chummy tone in assuring European allies that they will be kept abreast of any U.S. decisions.

“The United States has no interest in deploying defenses that would separate us from our friends and allies,” Rumsfeld insisted, adding that the project to create a shield against rogue nuclear attacks could be extended to protect Europe.

But key U.S. allies, as well as Russia, have expressed fears that the missile defense plan threatens post-Cold War achievements in arms control, because significant changes to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would be needed to allow the U.S. project. And these critics were hardly mollified by comments from U.S. delegates, including former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, that the ABM pact is outdated.

“The alternative to missile defense is a state of mutual assured destruction,” Kissinger warned, alluding to a Cold War-era theory that fear of nuclear retaliation would dissuade any nation from making a first strike. Now, he intimated, when there is more to fear from so-called rogue powers and terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, deterrence no longer holds among enemies willing to submit themselves and all around them to destruction.

Kissinger dismissed the fears of Russian and other European leaders that a missile defense would mean the abandonment of the ABM treaty, saying the pact was based on conditions 30 years ago that have little relevance to today’s security needs. Rumsfeld has disparaged the ABM pact as “ancient history.”

Two of the most outspoken U.S. participants, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), appealed to the allies to keep the value of transatlantic cooperation foremost in view.

Joking that the two represented the “U.S. government in exile”--a reference to their mutual failed bids for the White House last year--McCain said he was seriously worried about the chasm opening between Washington and Europe.

“I am concerned that our geographic divide is increasingly becoming a functional one,” McCain said, noting that the missile defense issue has been particularly divisive. “But . . . a situation where the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars to defend itself against terrorism, armed invasion and airstrikes by manned aircraft, yet leaves us vulnerable to missiles armed with nuclear warheads, is simply no longer tenable.”

Lieberman drew a parallel between European objections to the missile defense plan and U.S. concerns that the EU force will harm NATO. “We’re both saying, ‘Relax, we’re doing this for our own security, and it will be good for you too.’ I think we’re both right.”

But the Europeans seemed little comforted.

“New arms races must be avoided and further disarmament steps introduced,” German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer responded after a barrage of U.S. declarations that missile defense has bipartisan support in Congress as well as President Bush’s full endorsement.

Rumsfeld rejected suggestions of a renewed arms race, calling the idea a “leftover” from the age of superpower confrontation and asserting that not a single person in the United States today fears attack by Russia.

“These systems will be a threat to no one,” Rumsfeld insisted. “They should be of concern to no one, save those who would threaten others.”

U.S. delegates repeatedly criticized European states for investing too little in defense and allowing the Continent’s readiness and capability to flag, forcing NATO to deploy sophisticated U.S. forces and equipment in the 1999 assault to halt Yugoslav aggression in Kosovo.

But German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, hoarse and battling the flu, urged his American colleagues to take a broader view of European investments. “We shouldn’t think about security too narrowly. The importance of strengthening economic forces in Europe when they are not so strong in other parts of the world should not be underestimated,” he said.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and NATO Secretary-General George Robertson both argued that a Europe strengthened by its own military forces would be an asset for NATO, not a competitor.

“This must be in U.S. interests. After all, who wants a weaker partner? Who wants a weaker ally?” Solana asked.

While the debate focused on differences, leaders from both sides of the Atlantic repeatedly assured one another that they will consult and negotiate and continue to hold their partnership in the highest esteem.

“We will consult you,” Rumsfeld insisted with regard to the missile defense as well as any plans to reduce or withdraw U.S. troops from peacekeeping missions in the Balkans.