Initially published in www.romania-report.ro -- Dec 11, 2005
On Thursday, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov staged a “little scandal” – as ‘Novosti’ called it – at the Russia-NATO Council summit in Brussels, by overreacting to some US-Romanian bilateral settlement.
‘Novosti’ press agency reports that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov commented on the agreement between Romania and the United States on the deployment of American military in four bases located in the Black-Sea country, as it follows: "We are engaged in a dialog with the United States, and it has been settled that all changes to military structures should be transparent and comply with agreements on stability in Europe."
Moreover, "we are interested how these changes fit in with the adapted Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty," he said. "Unfortunately, our Western colleagues have used various far-fetched excuses not to ratify this document."
The Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov also commented on the new agreement. "We were aware of these plans," he said. "The American leadership notified us about them (sic). However, we do not know the total strength and intended use of these bases, and our response will depend on that." Response to what – one may ask? As widely reported to the media, the US-Romanian military cooperation would only aim joined actions to wage the global war on international terrorism and nothing else. And remember: traditionally, Romania was and still is a too small a state in order to represent any danger for Russia – Russian militarists, instead, were always unfriendly to Romanians in the last four centuries.
On Wednesday, Dec. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that smaller U.S. operating bases to open in Romania are a win-win for both countries. He was speaking at summit of Southeastern European leaders held in Washington, D.C.
Earlier that day, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, while visiting Romania, signed an agreement allowing U.S. troops to use Romanian military facilities.
“The agreement that we’ve been working with Romania is a good thing,” Rumsfeld said. “We’re not talking about permanent … bases in the sense of large populations of people and dependents and civil servants.”
Rather than calling the facilities military bases, the U.S. military prefers the term “forward operating sites” and “forward operating locations” to describe the small, relatively austere facilities.
The American Forces Press Service reported that the bases will be forwarding and staging facilities, not big, permanent bases. This will allow U.S. troops, most of whom will be in the United States, to be quickly deployed around the world. On Friday, Russian ‘Novosti’ news agency maliciously reported that Romania badly needs US bases because: “For a country suffering from high unemployment after joining the EU and NATO, jobs at American military bases are very important.”
As, currently, Romania’s unemployment rate is about 6.3%, against Russia’s 8.3%, maybe ‘Novosti’ analysts should seriously consider advising the Govt. in Moscow to take similar steps. This because…… ‘Novosti’ just found out that US-Romanian agreement “is also good for the United States, but for another reason. In November 2003, Rumsfeld signed the Joint Operational Concepts, which listed ten strategic priorities of the U.S. defense agency for the following years. It also set the task of transforming the armed forces in order to successfully wage the global war on international terrorism.”
“To do so the United States intends to integrate all branches of troops in separate inter-branch groups that can be quickly sent to any place of the world to fulfill tasks set by the Pentagon and the White House in any geographic conditions, any climate and using special kinds of weapons.”
“This is the purpose of the new bases in Europe. They will store the necessary arms and equipment so that when Herculeses with GIs arrive, they could get to the right place in time,” ‘Novosti’ reports.
These reasons above would have been enough for Moscow to look for a similar agreement with US, as Russia is so resolute in fighting international terrorism. Who knows – maybe it needs help in fighting the communist-terrorist regime in Transdniester? But instead, we hear that Lavrov and Ivanov voiced Russia’s concern about “six European NATO members as having 150 U.S. B61 free-fall nuclear bombs that can be carried by U.S. F16C/D planes, including from the Lithuanian aerodrome in Siauliai. The bases, as well as American radar systems built in the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and even Azerbaijan, and the missile interceptor base Washington wants to deploy in Poland, plus the new bases in Romania and, possibly, Bulgaria are moving closer to the Russian border.”
Therefore, Russians high officials apparently show concern on a would-be US-NATO strategic weapons deployment against CIS, which does not make any sense, as US will continue indefinitely to face huge terrorist threats and turmoil from the Middle East region.
Back to the Brussels “little scandal” and its essence. The new bases do not seem to fit in with the CFE Treaty because it is so far not known what arms and equipment will be there, ‘Novosti’ reads. We do not know for sure how stupid ‘Novosti’ thinks that the US allies in Eastern Europe could be in order to provide launch bases for nukes meant to attack Russia. But ‘Novosti’ pretends this is not a significant issue to be taken into account, and goes on: “The Treaty stipulates the use of tanks, armored vehicles and artillery with a caliber over 100-mm, airplanes, helicopters and personnel. But their number and purpose in Romania and elsewhere cannot be verified: the United States, as well as other NATO members, have not ratified the adapted Treaty using all sorts of implausible excuses. What should Russian generals do? Can they believe what they are told? After all, this is a serious matter. The country's security is at issue, and it is in the nature of the military to prepare for the worst. This means a new arms race, a backslide to the Cold War. Do we really need that?” ‘Novosti’ says.
“This raises another question: does Russia need the CFE Treaty? The United States has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
NATO refuses to ratify the CFE, demanding that Moscow honor its Istanbul commitments (made at the OSCE summit in 1999), although their fulfillment was hindered by NATO leaders, ‘Novosti’ report reads. At the end of the article, the reader finally finds out that the actual Russian concern is coming from the high ranked military, as ‘Novosti’ concludes: “General Yuri Baluyevsky, Russian chief of Staff, has once proposed to give up all obligations of transparency Russia has undertaken. Should we do as he says? After all, the recent moves of our NATO allies push us toward this decision.”
Romania Report using ‘Novosti’ report and other sources
No comments:
Post a Comment