With regards to the recent NATO summit the media is falling for another round of U.S. disinformation.
Missile Defense Endorsed By NATO, says the Washington Post:
President Bush advanced his plans Thursday to build a controversial missile defense shield in Eastern Europe by winning the unanimous backing of NATO allies and sealing a deal with the Czech Republic to build a radar facility for the system on its soil.
The NYT headlines NATO Endorses Europe Missile Shield
NATO leaders agreed Thursday to endorse a United States missile defense system based in Europe …
NATO has not "endorsed" the U.S. missile defense.
In only point 28 of the 50 point official Bucharest Summit Declaration it says:
We should continue our common efforts in the fight against terrorism and in the area of non proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and their means of delivery. We urge Russia to engage actively in important cooperative offers that have been extended. We believe that United States Russia bilateral discussions on missile defence and CFE, among other issues, can make an important contribution in this field.
…
We reaffirm to Russia that NATO’s Open Door policy and current, as well as any future, NATO Missile Defence efforts are intended to better address the security challenges we all face, and reiterate that, far from posing a threat to our relationship, they offer opportunities to deepen levels of cooperation and stability.
NATO ‘s own missile defense is a long standing and ongoing program for tactical theatre air and missile defense.
NATO has not endorsed the U.S. unilateral strategic missile defense. It
has acknowledged talks between Russia and the U.S. on the issue. Aside
from the NATO meeting the Czech Republic and the U.S. signed a
bilateral deal to build a radar side in Czechia. This will not be a
NATO installation.
There is a big difference between the tactical and the strategic program. NATO tactical missile defense capacities will not be able to hinder Russia’s strategic nuclear forces. The successful security policy of Mutual Assured Destruction is not endangered by these.
The U.S. strategic missile defense may one day hinder Russia’s
strategic capabilities. More than that, U.S. missile defense in East
Europe could be used as offensive weapons against Russia. A U.S. attack
from Czechia on Moscow would have warning time of only a few minutes.
That’s why Russia is set to counter these, probably with setting up its
own missile defense in Cuba against the imminent threat from Columbia.
In point 37 NATO "recognizes" the U.S. strategic missile defense attempts. In diplo-speech, that is hardly an endorsement. To see something doesn’t mean on likes it. Further, in what is a rebuke to U.S. unilateral action, NATO urges solidarity and then pushes the problem into the future:
Bearing in mind the principle of the indivisibility of Allied security as well as NATO solidarity, we task the Council in Permanent Session to develop options for a comprehensive missile defence architecture to extend coverage to all Allied territory and populations not otherwise covered by the United States system for review at our 2009 Summit, to inform any future political decision.
The reading of this on the eastern side of the Atlantic is much different from what the U.S. media are saying. One wonder how such cheerleading of Bush’s propaganda is supposed to be reporting.
U.S. media have also reported on a French reintegration into NATO. But the real intent of France is again different.
"Let Europe’s defense pole advance and we will continue to advance toward NATO. I repeat, these are two things that go together, not one or the other, so let’s wait for the summit" in 2009, [Sarkozy] said.
Sarkozy does not want to put French troops under NATO. He wants an (old) Europe defense organization build around French and German forces, that then may or may not be part of NATO.
The continued misreading of European intent for NATO in the U.S. might well lead to a deeper split and in the end a slow death for NATO.
That would be fine with me.