The most striking thing in the current discussions about the US missile defense shield, and Steinmeier`s recent speech at Bundestag is just another proof for that, is that Germans do not feel threatened by Iran at all. We do rather feel threatened by the theoretical possibility of a new arms race. Which is far more vague a threat, if at all a threat.
Also striking, we Germans do not seem to care about Israel at all. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated he wants to wipe Israel off the map. One would think that we Germans would welcome any defense shield that could prevent him from doing so. That we would not only welcome it, but support it, at least financially, logistically, morally. But instead of support there is open hostility to the defense shield, and thus no solidarity with Israel.
Thirdly, and it is sad to say, this is not a new phenomenon, we Germans seem to care more about Russian worries than about legitimate American concerns. That is beyond me.
The arguments being used against the building of this defense shield are - if meant serious - dangerously naïve:
German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, e. g., in his speech at Bundestag emphasises the fact that these Iranian missiles do not exist yet. Well, I am glad if they do not yet exist. But is he implying that the US should wait until Iran has the missiles and only then start building the defense shield? You do not have to be a military expert to understand that this is ridiculous.
“Enjoy” excerpts of Steinmeier`s speech (Federal Foreign Minister Steinmeier on the Government’s position on missile bases in Eastern European countries; comments made in the German Bundestag, March 21, 2007), my favourite is the last paragraph:
(…) The USA basically wants to meet the threats by establishing a global defence shield. It is prepared to use significant funds to achieve this end - it has so far earmarked at least 100 billion dollars for the project. The prime objective of our efforts to date has been, by means of preventative diplomacy - and that includes exerting pressure - to create a climate in which interested states abstain from developing weapons of mass destruction and missile technologies. Such a policy requires wise and resolute action on the part of the community of states - as we are now attempting in Iran and as has already led to some initial success in North Korea. But it also requires, as stated in the trailblazing article by George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn in the Wall Street Journal, a clear message from the nuclear states that they are serious about their disarmament commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They must not further undermine the existing disarmament framework by acting short-sightedly.
Indeed, the Cold War era is over. But it casts a long shadow of distrust and incommunicativeness, as is well illustrated by the dispute over the planned establishment of missile defence bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. This dispute is bringing to the surface the old, ingrained reflexes from the Cold War days - in the United States, as in Russia and Poland. I can only recommend that you read Henry Kissinger’s article in today’s Herald Tribune, which is a wise appeal for a greater understanding by America and Russia of each other’s security interests and their perceptions of the threats they face.
It is my impression that it is precisely this understanding that has been lacking, and perhaps it is indeed a sign of progress that both the US Secretary of Defence and Secretary of State have indicated that they see a need for further talks. Even if international politics is often a complicated business, the rules are no different from those in normal life: Trust can only be established by frank talks and by taking time for one another. This is what we now need in the dispute over the planned missile defence system. We must all sit down around a table and carefully weigh up our positions and interests. Many technical questions remain unanswered, as above all do political and strategic questions.
I can understand America’s desire to protect itself against an attack from long-range missiles. But let me say that military superiority alone cannot forcibly establish friendship or peace. For this reason I would like to ask the USA to think very carefully about the price it would have to pay if it were to forcibly get countries to agree to the missile bases, especially given that the Iranian long-range weapons they are designed to shield us from do not yet exist. The danger of driving a wedge through Europe and NATO, and of reviving old reflexes in Russia, is in my opinion very high a price. (…)
“Forcibly”? Did I miss something there? Did the US invade Poland and the Czech Republic to force the defense-shield on them?