B2 The Daily of Geopolitical Europe. News. Files. Reflections. Reports

Blog Analysisair defense

Defense The anti-missile shield, necessary for the USA and a study

(B2 - archives) Victoria Nuland, Ambassador, Head of the United States Mission to NATO, came to defend before the European parliamentarians and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, meeting in extraordinary joint session on November 21 in the European Parliament in Brussels, the establishment of an anti-missile shield on the European continent. " We already have similar coverage in the United States she argued, maps and transparencies in support. " We don't want to deploy anything in Europe that hasn't already been deployed and tested on our territory (in Alaska, California...). This technology is safe ».

Invoking NATO's solidarity clause, she explained that she wanted " defend our allies against threats » real. " A threat not only from Iran, Korea but also from other brigand states. And the Iranian threat is growing. [...] All our allies are aware of this". Denying any possible action against Russia - " Two-stage missiles deployed in Europe (three-stage in the USA) cannot reach Russian missiles - she recalled that this " deployment would be fully compatible with the Russian system” and proposed to extend the cooperation already underway within NATO, or even to go further still, by linking the systems as closely as possible, having by 2013, a single integrated USA-NATO-Russia system, offering almost total protection ».

After a presentation of the differences between Europeans and Americans, Stephen Pullinger, director for Europe of the ISIS (International Security Information Service), summarized the conclusions of the study carried out for the European Parliament: There is no logical, political or military reason for Europe to accept being vulnerable in relation to the States concerned. If this anti-missile defense makes it possible to fight effectively against voluntary or involuntary firing, the European States must accept it [...] They have already accepted the short range (within the framework of NATO), why not accept these long-range missiles ».

A remark that Karl von Wogau, the president (EPP-ED, Germany) who chaired the work tempered: “ Europe must have means of control allowing its own interests to be taken into account ».

Four conditions for the EU Presidency

Present at another meeting, that of the Parliament's External Affairs Committee, the day before, Nino Teixeira, the Portuguese Defense Minister, summarized the position of the EU Presidency on this issue:

« 1° Most of the Member States having chosen to settle this question at NATO, it is within this framework that it must be settled.

“2° All States must be covered by the (new) system.

“3° We must have an articulation between the systems in the short or medium term.

4° We must act transparently, in cooperation with Russia, but without giving Russia a right of veto over the system. »

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

article published on 26 November 2007 in Europolitique

Nicolas Gros Verheyde

Chief editor of the B2 site. Graduated in European law from the University of Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne and listener to the 65th session of the IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale. Journalist since 1989, founded B2 - Bruxelles2 in 2008. EU/NATO correspondent in Brussels for Sud-Ouest (previously West-France and France-Soir).

s2Member®