euro|topics - Can Europe ensure its defence on its own ?

Main focus of Monday, February 26, 2007

Can Europe ensure its defence on its own ?

The Czech Republic, Poland and the United Kingdom have begun negotiations with the United States with a view to the installation of elements of an American anti-missile shield on their territory. Russia has vehemently criticised the implantation of this defence system on its door-step. The press regrets that Europe should need the United States to protect it and is calling for a European defence policy to be put in place.

Die Presse - Austria

In a commentary, Austrian military expert Erich Reiter explains the vehemence of Vladimir Putin's reaction to the US missile defence system: "In reality Russia is no longer a superpower; it's just a huge country with enormous problems whose economic boom is based on raw material exports rather than modern technology. Its population is shrinking and its once vast military power is crumbling. The only claim it has to being a superpower is its strategic nuclear arsenal. In this respect it has already de facto lost its equal standing with the US. But it's still capable of retaliating. And it may be able to maintain this capability for some time - if it weren't for the construction of the missile defence shield. This is why Russia will go to any lengths to prevent this happening. In particular it will try to undermine the resolution of the US's new allies, its former vassals in Eastern Europe." (26/02/2007)

Trouw - Netherlands

"Poland and the Czech Republic would have been better off choosing a European security policy", suggests the daily, regarding American plans to install an anti-missile shield in these two countries. "An anti-missile shield sounds good, especially when the missiles come from Iran, or North Korea. ... But there are some serious questions to be answered. The three States [Poland, the Czech Republic and the United States] have made a decision excluding any consultation of the EU, or even NATO. ... Poland and the Czech Republic could have chosen a better path. The EU and NATO would have been better equipped to coordinate regional solutions to exterior threats coming from Russia, or countries such as Iran and North Kora. European security policy is of course still only in embryonic stages, but it does not deserve to be condemned to death before it even sees the light of day." (26/02/2007)

Le Monde - France

The daily regrets that the EU is dependent on the United States for the guarantee of its defence. "The Americans maintain that the anti-missile system could also serve, should the need arise, to defend Europe. This is reassuring. However, if this shield remains purely American, Europeans will find themselves more than ever dependent on the United States for their defence. The 27 Member States may well be tempted to convince Washington to finance a programme that costs considerably more than the European Union can afford, but, once again that would involve several obstacles. Lacking a strong political will, nascent European defence policy is turning a blind eye to the nuclear dimension of security, once again leaving the field clear for the Americans." (24/02/2007)

The Economist - United Kingdom

"Tony Blair has been discreetly waging a campaign since last autumn to secure the missile-interceptor site for Britain", the weekly has learned. "[Blair is] apparently convinced that missile-defence technology - long derided in polite European circles as an expensive 'Star Wars' fantasy - now works. Mr Blair believes that hosting the interceptors will make Britain as well as America more secure. ... Twice in recent weeks he has urged Britain to retain its ability to exercise 'hard', or military, power if it wants to exert the 'soft' power of diplomacy and peace-keeping that many of his European neighbours prefer. ... The system is a work in progress: it has been deployed even as parts are still being invented. America has gambled $90 billion so far that imperfect insurance is better than none in a risky world. Not for the first time, Mr Blair shares America's view. A British missile site - built only after a battle royal at home - would bind Britain to that world-view for a generation. That may be exactly how Mr Blair wants it." (23/02/2007)

» To the complete press review of Monday, February 26, 2007

Bookmark this page at