U.S. Defense Official's Remarks Regarding the New Missile Defense Architecture Raise Some False Hopes in Georgia

On Thursday, October 8, the U.S. Embassy in Georgia announced the dates of the visit by the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Alexander Vershbow [Photo on the left courtesy of NATO]. Vershbow will be in Tbilisi on October 19-20. As I wrote already elsewhere, the U.S.-Georgian defense consultations, which will proceed during Vershbow's visit, will be conducted within the framework of the bi-lateral Security Working Group - one of the four working groups (others are on democracy, economic development and people-to-people relations) set up under the aegis of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Commission, which, in turn, was founded earlier this year in accordance with the relevant provisions of the United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership signed on January 9, 2009. It should be noted that in late September Vershbow paid a working visit to Moscow, where, according to his September 30 interview with the Russian news agency Interfax, he was suppose to gauge Russia's "reaction to President Obama's [missile defense] decision and to determine whether Russia is interested in establishing a basis for cooperation on this." Vershbow's Interfax interview is compelling for a number of reasons some of which are cited below in the form of thematically arranged direct excerpts from the interview transcript:

Does the U.S. expect anything in return from Russia for Washington's changed stand on the missile defense issue?

Interfax: After revising its global missile defense plans, does the U.S. expect Russia to make reciprocal steps, including those regarding its stance on Iran’s nuclear program and the possible exports of S-300 air defense systems to Tehran?

Vershbow: The new approach which we have decided upon for missile defense was based on an analysis of the threats and of the available technologies, and was not presented as something on which we expected any quid pro quo. But the issue of the possible Russian transfer of the S-300 is a very critical issue in its own right, and we have said to Russia many times that we believe that that system could be very destabilizing in the region, and therefore have urged Russia to exercise restraint. So this is not something which we are negotiating on but simply something that we believe that Russia should see as in its own interest.

On Russia's concerns about the configuration of the Obama administration's new missile defense system:

Interfax: How would you comment on the concerns of some Russian experts that the new U.S. anti-missile system could be even more dangerous to Russia than the previous one, and if need be could Washington provide guarantee to Moscow that the U.S. missile defense program will not be targeted against Russia?

Vershbow: We look forward to further consultations with Russia to explain in greater detail than we have thus far the characteristics of the new system. Russia has already been briefed, primarily through the Russian ambassador in Washington who is a great expert in these matters. So we think Russia understands already the basic elements of the new architecture. But the whole rational for this new system is to deal with the threat from Iran, both the existing threats from short and medium range missiles, which are deployed today and already are capable of threatening not only Iran’s middleeastern neighbors but also some of our NATO allies in southeastern Europe. That’s what the first phases of the new system are focused on, providing immediate protection of our allies in the south east [of Europe]. But over time, to deal with future Iranian missiles which are already in the testing stage, and which will have longer range capacity to threaten allies in central Europe and northern Europe, the characteristics of the missiles which we are developing and the overall architecture, in our view, does not present any threat to Russia’s strategic nuclear forces. And so far I think we have found some understanding from Russia in this regard. But still, it is a new system and we are fully prepared to engage in consultations with Russia to answer any questions and to explore possibilities for cooperation. Iranian ballistic missiles are a potential threat not just to NATO but to all countries within range of these systems, and cooperating on either a U.S.-Russia or a NATO-Russia basis would be a very valuable way to strengthen our common security.

On the possibility of the U.S.-Russian cooperation in the missile defense area:

Interfax: In what particular areas can Russia and the U.S. cooperate on missile defense? Does Washington consider the possibility that the two countries could jointly operate the Russian radar station in Gabala, Azerbaijan, and its S-300 and S-400 air defense systems?

Vershbow: Secretary of Defense Gates and other senior defense officials have already pointed to the possibility of some form of link between Russian radars at Armavir, at Gabala, to provide additional data and early warning information that could benefit both of us in defending against ballistic missile threats. Exactly how these links would be established and how it would work technically is of course for the experts. But I think that the basic idea of sharing this kind of information against a common threat makes sense. And of course it could be just the beginning of a program of cooperation between NATO and Russia or between the United States and Russia on missile defense.

On the possibility of including the Caucasus in the new missile defense configuration:

Interfax: The U.S. missile shield plan reportedly envisions the deployment of some of its elements in the Caucasus. Could it be in Georgia, Azerbaijan, or some other state?

Vershbow: We are just at an early stage of designing this system and we are just beginning consultations with the allies in the southeast European region, as well as all our allies who could be part of the system in the long term. So, it’s really too early to comment on what countries might be participants in this system. I think that General O’Reilly, the head of our missile agency has emphasized that one of the keys to this system is to have an early warning radar relatively close to Iran, within a thousand kilometers of Iran, to provide an immediate detection of a launch, so that the rest of the system could do good work trying to intercept the missile before it hits its target.

Interfax: Could Georgia be part of it?

Vershbow: I really cannot say anything about specific countries. Right now we are consulting with our NATO allies. I can’t say anything more. Russian General Staff Chief Nikolai Makarov told that Russia had a negative attitude to the possible deployment of U.S. missile defense sites in the Caucasus. I think the important thing to remember is that we are talking about defending against the potential threat and potential attacks against our territory, our allies’ territory, and potentially Russian territory. I think that defensive strategies are inherently ones that bring countries together, countries that are facing a common threat. So that’s why we would hope that we can establish a basis for cooperation with Russia, so that everyone interested are protected.

On the American-Russian transit agreement for supplying U.S.-led coalition troops fighting in Afghanistan, which has not been implemented yet:

Interfax: When is the U.S. going to start using its right of military transit to Afghanistan through Russia?

Vershbow: I can’t give you an exact date (when the U.S. will start transit through Afghanistan) There are still some procedural issues that are not quite completed. I don’t think there are any differences between the countries, but there are some processes that have to run their course. We are hoping that these flights can begin very soon. The agreement in July was a very important commitment by Russia to contribute to the success of the NATO operation in Afghanistan. And putting that agreement to effect, I think, will not only be of practical value, but will be a strong signal to people of Afghanistan and to the surrounding region that the United States and Russia are working together to deal with a major challenge to international security.

On the recently published EU-sponsored report by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (the so-called Tagliavini report):

Interfax: An independent international commission has determined that it was Georgia which started the war in the South Caucasus last August. Do you think these findings could affect the U.S.’ military cooperation with Georgia?

Vershbow: Washington is still studying this report, from what I have read only in the news it talks about the responsibility of both sides, but I think that it is really premature to draw any other conclusions before we have a chance to fully assess the report. We have always stood by Georgia’s sovereignty and independence and we will continue to support Georgia’s sovereignty and independence, and in the context of this report we should await the first comments of the [U.S.] State Department.

Vershbow's Caucasus comment probably gave the Georgian political expert and security analyst Gia Nodia the reason to tell the Armenian on-line news channel News.am on October 5 that the combination of the U.S. strategic interests in the region and threat of terrorism makes the establishment of the elements of the new missile defense system in Georgia likely. Nodia stated, "U.S. has an opportunity to use Georgia's territory, and its strategic interests quite allow them to do so." At the same time, on the official level, the Georgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Grigol Vashadze avoided speculation when on the same day he stated that the U.S. has not addressed Georgia about the possibility of deployment of missile defense system in Georgia yet. While the latter, wait-and-see approach is obviously far more prudent under the circumstances, U.S. Secretary of Sate Hillary Clinton's remarks during her first recently concluded trip to Russia indeed provide a glimmer of hope that the U.S.-Georgian defense cooperation will not be bulldozed altogether by the priorities of the "reset" with Moscow. In her joint press conference with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on October 13, Secretary Clinton openly admitted that, when it comes to Georgia, the U.S. and Russia basically agree to disagree ("We will not see eye-to-eye on Georgia"). More importantly, in her interview with the opposition-minded radiostation Ekho Moskvy on October 14, Secretary Clinton simultaenously poured cold water on unrealistic missile defense expectations of some in Tbilisi while providing reassurances regarding the continuous defense assistance to Georgia. Here's the relevant excerpt from the interview transcript:

A. Venediktov: In this regard we understand the concern of Mr. Lavrov, and I would like to ask you directly - will the elements of the missile defense system be located on the territory of Georgia that causes disagreements between you?

H. Clinton: Yes, and I have no reason to believe at all that anything would be deployed in Georgia. No, I have no reason to believe that, and that is, I know, a matter of great concern to the Russian Federation. But again, that’s why we would like to work with – we would like to eliminate the concerns. We would like to have a joint missile defense program to protect our people, your people, our European friends and allies, to put as broad a missile defense system so that we can guard against short and medium-range missile that might have nuclear weapons.

A. Venediktov: Madame Secretary, did Mr. Lavrov rise the question of re-arming the Georgian army by your country and what did you respond to him?

H. Clinton: We talked about Georgia. Now we do have a difference there, and even though we are working hard to not just reset our relationship, but deepen our relationship, we will disagree about Georgia. Georgia is providing troops in Afghanistan. We are training Georgians to be able to go to Afghanistan. But we’re also making it very clear that we expect both the Georgians and the South Ossetians and the Abkhazians and everyone else to avoid provocative action, to deal with whatever problems they have through peaceful and diplomatic means.

A. Venediktov: But re-arming of and support to the Georgian army, Madame Secretary, concerns Russia a great deal.

H. Clinton: Minister Lavrov did not ask me that question, but we will help the Georgia people to feel like they can defend themselves.

A. Venediktov: This means that Minister Lavrov behaved himself like a gentleman. Usually he asks such questions. With you he behaved like a gentleman.

H. Clinton: Well, I think he knew the answer.

As officially announced, main topics of U.S.-Georgian defense consultations during Vershbow's visit to Tbilisi will focus on the Georgian defense reform, contributions to NATO operations in Afghanistan and regional security issues. Undoubtedly speculations will proliferate about what all this will mean for Georgia's ability (or rather lack thereof) to defend itself and one suggestion that seems to be almost intuitive is that Tbilisi will certainly be better off if it suppresses its desire to boast success in this sensitive area, when none is to be noted.