Russia/US Co-operation On Missile Defense?

By Steve Hynd

Have the Obama administration's foreign policy wonks been reading Martin Hellman's seminal 1986 op-ed on missile defense co-operation? Back then, he wrote:

Our current approach of secret research with the promise of later sharing is asking the Soviets to naively trust us. In the current world environment, expecting naive trust from either of the superpowers is living in a dangerous fantasy land.

There is a simple procedure, however, by which we can move out of fantasy, back into reality. If SDI is for global benefit, the work should not be Top Secret. If we really plan to share the technology with the Soviets, let us answer their mistrust by sharing the technology with them now, not at some indefinite point in the far future. Or, if we have no real intention of ever sharing with them, let us be honest and say so. We will not have fooled the Soviets, and the American public would then assess SDI in a very different light.

Let us be honest with ourselves and the world. Will the real SDI please stand up: a futile, �old-mode,� secret attempt at military superiority or an honest, �new-mode�, open effort to use technology for the benefit of all humankind?

From that day to this, it's always been the problem with missile defense plans - that Russia (and China) would see such systems as an attempt to create a first strike capability rather than a true defense. And in truth, a first strike capability has always been what the American Right has been after.

But with Carl Levin saying yesterday that "The President�s decision also opens the door to missile defense cooperation with Russia," and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen calling today for Nato and Russia to link their missile defence systems, the trial balloon is well and truly up. The London Times reports:

�The proliferation of ballistic missile technology is of major concern not just to Nato but to Russia too,� said Mr Rasmussen.

�Our forces deployed in theatre will all become increasingly vulnerable to missile attacks by third parties. Studying ways to counter this threat is in Nato and Russia�s strategic interest. We should explore the potential for linking the US, Nato and Russian missile defence systems at an appropriate time.�

In another significant olive branch to Moscow, Mr Rasmussen further pledged to engage with plans from Dmitiri Medvedev, the Russian President, to develop a new Euro-Atlantic security arrangement.

�I believe that a Nato-Russia dialogue could provide real added value. We must all aim for a Euro-Atlantic security architecture in which Russia sees herself reflected,� he said.

As he was speaking, Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, praised as "correct and brave" Washington's decision to shelve President Bush's plans.

Rasmussen's suggestions will be faced with a lot of pushback from Russophobes on the American Right and from within the President's own party, but the idea that missile defense might finally become something useful "for the benefit of all humankind" is certainly worth expending political capital on.

Update: Robert Farley amusingly deconstructs the Right's myth-in-making that Eastern Europeans are pissed at Obama's decision and that the very future of NATO is in doubt.