The New but Misguided "partnership" between the U.S. and Russia

------------------------------------------------------------
The New but Misguided "partnership"

A rather unexpected turn of events has occured in regards to U.S.

and Russian policies and positions on Missile Defense in Europe

and in the Region, reports Jim Wolf in his article,

U.S. seeks "full partnership" with Russia on missiles (see below).

The head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, Army

Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly said, "The (new) approach is to

lay out ideas, and not to have a fully developed plan. You need to move

foward at a prudent pace so that there are collaborative decisions,

intermediate decisions made along the way, so that there is true partnership."

Wolf says, Obama, during the two-day visit to Russia this week,

called for a fresh era in bilateral security ties focusing on mutual

interests. He and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev

agreed to pursue a plan, first floated in the 1990's

to open a joint early-warning center to monitor launches worldwide.

Too, O'Reilly said he had not received any orders "to deviate" from

expanding U.S. missile defense into Poland and the Czech Republic,

an idea Moscow calls a threat to Russian security.

This new plan came about as the two Presidents worked on an

agreement to cut nuclear weapons and consider missile defense

in Europe. Working together "in partnership" is a far cry to the early

statements issued forth by Micheal McFaul, special assistant to the

president for National Security Affairs.

McFaul said, " We're not going to reassure or give or trade

anything with the Russians regarding NATO's expansion or missile

defense." Fortunately that very hard-line approach was not taken up

by President Barack Obama, who chose instead to table the discussion

on missile defense for another time. Obama's intelligent "tabling" of the

missile defense issue allowed President Medvedev to go along with the

nuclear weapons reduction agreement despite his earlier admonishion

that he would not do so unless the U.S. stopped the missile defense plan

completely. Now. with the use of diplomacy and cooperation, they are

speaking of "partnership" .

However, to open a joint early-warning center to monitor launches

worldwide is a freightening prospect. Not only would it cost both nations,

and probably other nations as well, billions and billions of dollars, it would

give the two mightiest nuclear powers on earth more power and dominance

than ever before in history.

As the Buddha has said, "The real and lasting victories are those of peace,

and not of war",

Real. long-term, victories come from peace-making and not of war-making.

Instead of a world-wide missile defense system we need a world-wide

diplomacy network including as many nations as possible to contribute their

wisdom and resources in order for people to understand and respect one

another. Once that occurs then mutual cooperation, negotiations, mediations,

resolutions and agreements can take place to smooth over troubled differences

between peoples and make peaceful settlements that would have a chance for

long time.success.

More military weapons and counter-weapons, as missile defensive systems

are designed for, would increase tensions and anxieties for millions of people

worldwide in the future.We need less tension not more, a time for security so

that people can recover from the past - especially the recent past with all the

wars and violence still occurring- and begin to recover and reconstruct their

countries and themselves from all the trauma, hurts and pain incurred from

worldwide violence.

To assure people of their national security and some peace of mind we need to

stress disarmament as a key to peacemaking. In some of the statements

in the articles sited below disarmament is mentioned along with the strengthening

of defense. The argument sort of goes that if nations still have mass weapons then

we need to defend ourselves against their possible threats. At the same time we

need to disarm is uttered but little reall effort is generated in actually making that

happen in the U.S. or many other countries. Instead military budgets continue to

escalate and peacemaking budgets (???) are hardly considered.

In all fairness to the Obama administration the deployment of a dozen envoys in

troubled countries of the world, under the auspices of the Secretary of State,

Hillary R. Clinton, is a bold and progressive development. The State Department

has many thousands of people on staff, many who could be placed in countries

around the world (probably best in teams) to help foster diplomacy and

conflict-resolution, foster ways of helping those in need with resources from many

countries; create a worldwide resource network that can be drawn upon by

diplomats and negotiators as needed... We need creative ideas rather than more

weapons that stymie creativity and innovation, increase tensions and sometimes

lead to more violence and war-making.

So, as we applaud the current nuclear reduction agreement because it

gives us some sense of security and the hope for better relations between

the U.S. and Soviet Union (though the reductions of nuclear weapons are

small in numbers), and feel relieved that the missile defense system in

Europe is probably "off the table", let us take a deep breath and consider

the implications of an expansion of military might as a worldwide defense

system and the increased unchecked power and difficulties it would bring

.... and work and lobby for an expanded diplomatic negotiating force

let us give peace a chance while opposing the joint early warning

Arn Specter, Phila.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Video and Article on Missile Defense in Europe

and Future Partnership between the U.S. and Russia