Paris, 9 November 2007 – The United States is resolved to develop a large-scale ballistic missile defence system to protect its national territory and is ready to extend the protection offered by that system to its European allies. Russia is vehemently opposed to the deployment of new elements of the American anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland. Tensions are mounting and this is likely to rebound on Europeans. The colloquy on Ballistic Missile Defence in Europe held by the WEU Assembly in the French Senate, Paris, on 7 November, gave rise to a truly European debate on this strategic and highly political subject, with American and Russian representatives present.

The Americans insist that this kind of defence would be solely to protect against countries like Iran or North Korea. But Russia will have none of it. As British MP Eddie O’Hara (Chairman of the Assembly’s Technological and Aerospace Committee) explained, in view of the extent of Russia’s arsenal “the Russian ballistic missile risk is real but (…) the threat is low”. Conversely, “the Iranian ballistic missile risk is low (…) but the threat is high”.

The Assembly’s President, the French Senator Jean-Pierre Masseret, regretted that for the moment the EU was not included in any discussions on the issue, which was not normal. The Assembly unanimously passed several recommendations to the effect that Europeans should make a joint evaluation of the threat of an attack against Europe from missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Europe could then decide, in full knowledge of the facts, whether or not there was a need for it to develop its own missile defence system which would be interoperable with the American system. Proposals from Russia for cooperation would also be welcome.

NATO for its part had concentrated up to now on setting up a theatre missile defence to protect troops deployed in the field. One speaker remarked that “in security terms, you got out of NATO what you put in”. If Europeans decided to develop a ballistic missile defence system to defend their territories, whether in the EU or the Atlantic Alliance, a very considerable financial effort indeed would be necessary on the part of the governments of Europe.

Moreover, a missile defence system was not a substitute for a nuclear deterrent. This then raised the question of whether joint European deterrence was feasible. Of the European Union’s 27 member countries, only France and the United Kingdom had nuclear weapons. Would they be prepared to protect all the citizens of the European Union?

The whole issue of ballistic missile defence was discussed in a recent report: “Missile defence – a common European position?” submitted to the Assembly on behalf of the Technological and Aerospace Committee by Mr O’Hara on 6 June 2007 (Document 1971). This strategic question for Europe will again be included among the issues debated at the Assembly’s forthcoming plenary session, to be held in Paris from 3-5 December.