US scraps plans for missile defence shield in central Europe.

At the time, I said I thought it was "yet another example of the reckless unilateralism at the heart of the neo-con agenda" which made "the world a more dangerous place whilst promising the opposite".

It seemed to me to be idiotically insensitive to the Russians at a time when they were co-operating in the War on Terror. Indeed, I thought Bush was acting as if the Cold War had never ended.

So I am delighted at Obama's latest decision.

Barack Obama today reversed almost a decade of Pentagon strategy in Europe, scrapping plans to deploy key elements of a US missile defence shield.

Instead, he said, a more flexible defence would be introduced, allowing for a more effective response to any threat from Iranian missiles.

The U-turn is arguably the most concrete shift in foreign policy from that of the Bush administration, which spent years negotiating to place silos and interceptor missiles in Poland, and a radar complex in the Czech Republic.

The Bush administration always behaved as if the rest of the world simply had to accept whatever America gave them, ignoring the lessons of both Iraq and Afghanistan: that this theory worked much better on planning boards that it ever did in reality.

In reality, for every move, there is a possible counter move. And when Bush attempted to pull off this particular one there were many who thought he was in danger of setting off a new Cold War on European soil.

President Dmitry Medvedev described today's announcement as a "responsible move ... We value the US president's responsible approach towards implementing our agreements," he said. "I am ready to continue the dialogue."

Obama could never hope to get any Russian agreement when it came time to discuss what to do about Iran whilst he was effectively holding a gun to Russia's head. So, he has done the right thing, and put the gun down.

The decision was welcomed among Nato allies in western Europe, which had viewed the earlier project as an unnecessary provocation to the Russians.

No-one, not even the eastern Europeans, thought that this was a clever move by Bush. Indeed, 70% of Czechs were opposed to this deployment. The rest of Europe thought it incendiary and unnecessary. In truth, it had Dick Cheney written all over it.

The Republicans will no doubt have a seizure, claiming that Obama has capitulated to Putin and that America's defences have been left wide open, but it's a pile of old tosh.

Robert Farley points out the contradictions in the Republican case:

The decision to deploy a US ballistic missile defence system to eastern Europe was, at its core, a political manoeuvre. The military arguments in favour of the deployment were confused and contradictory. Advocates initially argued that the system was intended to deter Iran, and that it could not defend against Russian missiles. Later, as concern about the Iranian missile threat ebbed, supporters argued that cancellation of the programme would represent appeasement of Russian aggression.

The technical case for the system was never terribly compelling, as sea-based ballistic missile defences have proven to be more mobile and more capable than the system that was proposed for Poland. The real reasons for the decision to deploy the system were the happy nexus of defense industry financial interest and an ideological commitment on the part of the Republican party. The former requires no explanation. As for the latter, one foreign policy analyst described it thusly: "Cancelling missile defence is like denying communion to Reagan cultists." Since the Reagan administration, missile defence has stood as an unchallenged article of faith in Republican foreign policy circles. The eastern European system was a logical culmination of these two forces.

These people were denied power because of the way they behaved over the last eight years and the state in which they left the United States after two terms of their rule.

There is simply no reason why anyone should listen to them now as they squeal about Obama surrendering to the Russians. One need only remind them that they had previously argued that this missile defence system had nothing whatsoever to do with the Russians in the first place.

Overall, this is a tremendous victory for a sane foreign policy and a responsible defence policy. The US will save money, and avoid needlessly antagonising Russia. While neither the Obama nor Medvedev administrations have characterised the decision as part of any quid pro quo on Iran or any other aspect of US-Russia relations, Russia and the US have been exploring co-operation on several issues, including the war in Afghanistan and policy towards Iran. Russia has recently taken steps to open up its airspace, making resupply of Nato forces in Afghanistan much easier.

Even if Obama didn't win specific concessions from the Russians, he still made the right decision. Saving money and avoiding needless antagonism of Moscow are victories in and of themselves.

It's extraordinary, but one can make the case for cancelling missile defence without even going into the fact that it doesn't actually work.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Obama, Putin, missile defence

Blair in talks with Bush to site US defence shield in Britain

Sometimes watching Blair makes me feel as if I am in some kind of time warp.

In the eighties we all marched through Greenham and Aldermaston objecting to Thatcher's decision to allow Reagan to position American cruise missiles in Britain. Our argument at the time was that the positioning of these weapons on British soil made us a target and that the final decision on the use of these weapons lay with a foreign power. Various right wing newspapers at the time published the lie that Maggie's finger was on the button, but only the most deluded ever took that remotely seriously.

The world is a very different place now than it was then. The Cold War is over. The Soviet Union no longer exists and, indeed, Russia is America's partner in the War on a Noun.

All of which makes Blair's attempts to have the US put American anti-ballistic weapons on British soil, as part of the American "Star Wars" defensive shield, seem bizarre.

It all seems to be part of Blair's wish to establish himself as more Thatcherite than even Thatcher was. At least when Thatcher turned us into a target she did so by employing a weapons system that was proven to work. Blair seems to want to turn us into a target by installing a US defence system that has so far proven unable to shoot down any incoming missile with any degree of reliability.

And, at a time when most of us would like to reduce our reliance on a nuclear defence, Blair seems to be joining Bush in ratcheting up tensions with the Russians who, rightly, see this missile "defence" as an act of hostility and an attempt to give the US the right to use nuclear weapons without fear of a nuclear retaliation against them.

And what's also astonishing about Blair's offer and the fact that he has now - for the first time - made such an offer public, is that the US appear not to even want to base these weapons in Britain.

The US deputy chief of mission in London, David Johnson, said: "As we go forward, there may be opportunities for us to talk to other countries about their needs, but right now we are concentrating on the Czech Republic and on Poland as the primary sites where we would be looking for this," he told BBC radio.

Leaving aside the hysterically funny claim by Mr Johnson that country's who accept these weapons will be doing so in consideration of "their needs" as opposed to the needs of the US, Johnson is actually knocking Blair back. He's saying, "thanks, but no thanks".

There seems no humiliation that Blair will not endure in order to prostrate himself before Bush and prove the "Special Relationship". A relationship that has, under Blair, revealed itself to be a hideously one way street.

The Prime Minister's eagerness to accept the weapons was seen by Labour MPs as part of an attempt by Mr Blair to clear the decks on legacy issues including a replacement for Trident, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and cuts in NHS waiting times, before handing over to Mr Brown. One Labour MP said it was like "a fire sale".

I mean we've got to the stage where we are not only acceding to every American request - whether it is in our interests or not - we are now actively offering to make ourselves targets, getting knocked back, and then making public our request to have a giant bullseye painted on UK Plc.

I try to avoid saying that politicians are insane or unhinged, however, Blair's actions are beginning to seem more and more detached from any kind of reality.

His interview on the Today programme this week was literally jaw dropping. If you haven't heard it I really would strongly recommend that you click here and do so. As one commentator at the Guardian observed, Blair now makes Comical Ali sound like the voice of reason.

Indeed, in the very week that Blair announced our ignominious withdrawal from Iraq in defeat, whilst loftily declaring that he accepted "no responsibility" for the chaos that is swirling throughout that country, a few words uttered by that loveable loon, Comical Ali, come back as an example of prescience.

"Do not be hasty because your disappointment will be huge," the old crazy warned. "You will reap nothing from this aggressive war, which you launched on Iraq, except for disgrace and defeat. We will embroil them, confuse them, and keep them in the quagmire."

It's a sad day when Comical Ali turns out to have had more foresight than the leaders of either the US or the UK.

And as Blair stumbles towards his exit, making rash offers to the US and ignoring the reality that is his political legacy, I am reminded of the words of Zig Ziglar, the American motivational speaker, "If you can learn from defeat, you haven't really lost."

Blair refuses to accept even a consolation as minor as that.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Blair, Bush, UK, US, Comical Ali, cruise missiles, star wars, missile defence system, Iraq, Russia

'Star Wars' missile test heralds new arms race in space

The 1997 report of the National Defense Panel concluded, “Unrestricted use of space has become a major strategic interest of the United States” and the NRO recently hinted that the US is looking for full spectrum dominance in outer space and that they plan "to develop a strategy that ensures America's allies, as well as its enemies, never gain access to the same space resources without Washington's permission. Recent proposals that have been circulated at Space Command and NRO briefings suggest that access to "near-earth space" may be refused to other nations."

This full spectrum dominance of outer space is seen as "both the hallmark and the instrumentality of American superpower".

It is therefore something of a shock to find that the Chinese have launched a missile into space which has knocked out a satellite. Nor was this entirely unpredicted or unforeseen as this report from Gabriele Garibaldi bears witness to.

Space, the key to the balance of power in the twenty-first century.

As shown, China has the aim to equip itself with the necessary means to look after its own interests and be able to withstand a conflict with the USA. In spite of the (ephemeral) alliance in fighting the Fundamental Islamic terrorism after 9/11, China considers the USA a hegemonic power that limits its development to its own area of influence. China’s ambition, therefore, is to assert itself as the alternative power to America currently in Asia, and to establish with the United States a relationship on equal terms in a multipolar international system.

It was typical of the arrogance that leads the entire neo-con movement that they would have attempted to claim control over space exclusively for the use of the US and her allies, and it was only a matter of time before someone seriously challenged this ridiculous notion.

Reagan, of course, kicked this off with his ill fated Star Wars project; and Bush has carried on pursuing ways to knock out ballistic weapons before they reach their target. Indeed, Bush last year published his National Space Policy which reserved for the US the right to continue developing such technology, to which the Chinese objected.

The National Space Policy stated:

The United States rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space;

It was fairly controversial stuff and typical of the way the neo-cons have sought to ride roughshod over the rest of the planet. Indeed, the Bush administration was known to be considering putting weapons into space, a tactic that the US has avoided doing for the last forty years.

"I believe that weapons will go into space. It's a question of time. And we need to be at the forefront of that," Pete Teets, Undersecretary of the Air Force and Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, told a March 6 conference in Washington.¹ While Teets, who is now the Pentagon's lead official for procurement of space programmes, was careful to say that no policy decision to put weapons in space has yet been made, his views reflect a consensus among top Air Force leaders - and indeed, among military officials across the board. The prevailing wisdom in all branches of the services is that "conflict in space is inevitable."

This view underlies the policy statements on space so far emerging from the Bush administration. For example, the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released on October 1, 2001, cites the need to improve space systems as one of six critical goals of military transformation - thus placing top priority on the issue within the Pentagon. The Review states: "A key objective...is not only to ensure US ability to exploit space for military purposes, but also as required to deny an adversary's ability to do so."

The Americans have reacted with alarm and anger at the Chinese action.

“The US believes China’s development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of co-operation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area,” Mr Johndroe said. “We and other countries have expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese.”

This comment is made despite the fact that the US is developing it's own laser technology to do exactly what the Chinese have just done; knock out satellites.

Bush may have his hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Chinese have just given him a whole new headache. Unless Bush agrees to Chinese demands and enters into negotiations regarding the future use of space by all nations, it is likely that Russia and the EU will also enter into this new arms race.

It is well known that the Bush administration abhors negotiations and that they prefer to act as something akin to the Roman Empire, but in this case their bluff has been well and truly called. They would do well to enter into negotiations immediately if for no other reason than one nation demanding complete control of outer space is, in itself, an outrage.

However, if Bush acts as he has done in the past, we can now expect a full scale arms race to develop. I, for one, do not expect him to change his ways.

Click title for full article.

tag: US, China, Star Wars, outer space, satellites,