Missile Defense Plan Faces Congressional, Diplomatic Roadblocks

By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff

President Bush was unable this week to win Russian President Vladimir Putin’s concurrence with U.S. plans to build missile defense radar and interceptor sites in eastern Europe, but his biggest roadblocks may come when Congress returns from recess next week.

Democrats have chastised the administration for failing to build consensus in Europe around the plan and for advancing deployment of the sites despite incomplete testing.

“Congress’ decision on whether to fund the initial program in the FY 2008 defense bill will likely revolve around its assessment of broader security policy issues, as well as technical concerns related to the system,” the Congressional Research Service said in a June 22 report.

Restrictions on initial funding to build an advanced X-band radar array in the Czech Republic and place 10 silo-based interceptor missiles in Poland by 2013 were included in both the House and Senate versions of the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill (HR 1585, S 1547).

Currently, the United States has 20 silo-based interceptors deployed in Alaska and several in California.

The administration requested $310.4 million for the program in fiscal 2008.

The House version (HR 1585), passed May 17, would bar the government from spending money in fiscal 2008 for the construction of the sites and require the administration to report by January its plans to bring NATO on board.

“I know that sometimes it’s faster to work with a ‘coalition of the willing,’ but such coalitions usually don’t have strong foundations,” said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher of California, chairwoman of the Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

The House bill would authorize $42.7 million for 10 additional interceptor missiles, which could be used elsewhere in Europe.

The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its markup, recommended cutting $85 million from the administration’s missile defense request in fiscal 2008 and required the Pentagon reach firm agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic before funds are released.

The Senate bill (S 1547) would also require further testing before allowing the government to procure more interceptors. The Senate will begin floor debate on the legislation July 9.
Bush-Putin Disagreement

After meeting with Putin Monday in Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush expressed “strong agreement” on working within the Russia-NATO council to negotiate on missile defense issues, one of the new proposals the Russian leader had brought to the summit. National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said “there a real opportunity for cooperation on missile defense between the U.S. and Russia.”

But the two leaders were unable to agree on the substance of the issue.

Putin wants to build a new radar site in southern Russia and an information exchange center in Moscow. At the recent Group of Eight summit in Germany, Putin also proposed using an existing radar site in Azerbaijan.

Putin said that the Russia and Azerbaijan sites would negate the need for sites in eastern Europe, but Bush responded that “the Czech Republic and Poland need to be an integral part of the system.”

Steven Pifer, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, “The crux of the problem remains.”

The Russians are keenly aware of the ongoing debate in Washington over the sites, and are trying to take advantage of the administration’s weakness on the issue, Pifer said.

For example, when the House announced its plan to restrict funds for building the sites in Eastern Europe, the White House did not issue a veto threat, choosing instead to “strongly oppose” the congressional action.

Putin’s offer is a “win-win” for Russia whether the United States goes along or not, said said Alex Petersen, a London-based Russia analyst.

Russia’s offer would not require any new investment because its leaders already planned to build the proposed radar site, Petersen said. If the United States balks at his proposal, Putin can claim his suspicions of hostile U.S. motives against Russia are justified.

“It works out pretty well for the Russians either way,” he said.

From a military perspective, the Azerbaijan radar site lacks tracking and targeting capability and is too close to Iran to shoot down a missile in the midcourse phase, when chances for interception are greatest, Pifer said.

On the other hand, the Eastern European sites would be ideal for intercepting a missile fired from Iran and aimed at North America, he said.

Source: CQ Today