Polish Security Must Be Assured Before We Accept U.S. Missile Shield Base

While in recent days, the news has been that Poland has accepted the stationing of a base of missile interceptors as part of America’s anti-missile shield, according to this op-ed from columnist Roman KuŸniar of Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza, the debate inside Poland continues, and it still isn’t clear how it will turn out. KuŸniar writes, ‘The compensation should be calculated not in billions of dollars, but in providing Poland with the same standard of security that we had before the base’s installation, no matter how much it will cost the United States … Washington must also understand that if our expectations are not met and Warsaw resists caving into pressure from Washington and America’s friends in Poland and decides against locating such a base in our country, this will not mean a retreat from its close alliance with the United States.’

By Roman KuŸniar

Translated By Halszka Czarnocka

January 29, 2008

Poland – Gazeta Wyborcza – Original Article (Polish)

Poland is in the middle of difficult negotiations about its possible role in the American ballistic missile defense program WATCH . And just when our government faces the difficult task of rationalizing Poland’s position, a growing wave of criticism has arisen to try and hurry things up and take the government to task over its conduct.

“By defying Washington, we risk
our alliance with America, and in any case, what counts in this alliance are values – not arms deals,” write critics of the government’s new position. The idea that we may be, “dragging our heels” or “playing for time,” until a change in administration in Washington is being met with severe condemnation.

Such voices come perhaps as a surprise, but not overly so. Accommodating the interests of other powers is not new to Polish culture or political thought. But this time we shouldn’t succumb to doing so, since criticism notwithstanding, we’re dealing here with Poland’s basic security interests.

As is necessary, Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government opted to rationalize of our approach to the missile shield because up to now, Polish policy has been entirely emotional, i.e. based on traditional Polish feelings for the United States. Those feelings in the case of the U.S. have a very sound basis, but as Oscar Wilde once said, “When in love, don’t close your eyes.”

Saying yes to the shield has enormous strategic implications for our country, often blissfully ignored by our own enthusiasts for the project.

First, the negotiations under way are not in any way caused by threats to our own security. There are no security issues to call for our participation in the U.S. missile shield program.

Moreover, according to many trustworthy analysts and observers, there is no such threat to the U.S. either. Such well-known figures as historians Norman Davies or Niall Ferguson even see the missile shield as proof of the irrationality of the Bush Administration’s security policy.

Wolfgang Panofsky, a long-time presidential advisor on nuclear policy, recently wrote in Foreign Affairs what I have maintained from the very beginning: that the program is a consequence of America’s technological and financial potential, and not a response to a realistic threat.

In this case, our ally America is not in danger, as some say, but with our participation is simply treating itself to a luxury. And we have entered into these negotiations because of our desire to maintain close relations with the U.S., not because we were afraid of Iran or anyone else.

Second, our own national security is the absolute limit of compromise in these matters. The government is right in its assessment that the installation of a missile shield base in Poland will negatively impact our security. And that’s why it is pressing – not to get something in return as the critics charge, but for duly balancing the equation. Both sides should gain in security, not just the U.S. – and to our detriment.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US