Cooperative missile defense is already underway

Cooperative ventures have elicited the consensus support of a range of critically important allies. A U.S. missile defense radar recently become operational in Turkey, a missile defense agreement with Romania came into force earlier this year, and Germany has agreed to host the main operational center for the NATO system. And the United States has long been jointly developing the “Arrow” interceptor with Israel, an upgraded version of which was tested earlier this year.
 
{mosads}These developments indicate that a broad swath of U.S. allies with varying levels of capabilities and diverse threat environments have agreed to pursue a cooperative approach. The newest NATO allies, such as those in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, have expressed a special interest. These nations have strong memories of foreign domination. American missile defense commitments, especially when they take the form of tangible assets such as radars and interceptors, provide a powerful form of reassurance.
 
Cooperation negotiations also are underway with Russia. According to a recent report of the Euro-Atlantic Security Initiative, a group of high-level former officials from the United States, Russia, and Europe, such cooperation could be a “game changer” for U.S.-Russia relations. It would represent a significant step away from antiquated Cold War practices while contributing significantly to U.S. missile defense capabilities  — providing us access to warning data from the Gabala radar in Azerbaijan, for example. The location of this radar makes it particularly effective in detecting and tracking missile launches from the Middle East.
 
Some in Congress believe  that we should strictly limit the scope of missile defense cooperation with Russia. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) recently introduced legislation to prohibit the United States from sharing missile data with Russia, a precondition for cooperation that the US military believes is in the national security interest. The bill also calls for reporting requirements that could impinge on the ability of the executive branch to conduct constructive and beneficial diplomacy.
 
The desire to protect American technology and sensitive data is prudent and understandable. Any cooperative arrangement must take these considerations firmly into account. Sweeping or arbitrary obstacles to cooperation are misguided, however. They ignore the reality that the United States already exchanges data with Russia under several treaties and standing arrangements implemented by both Republican and Democratic administrations. These include data exchanges about missile threats and other strategically sensitive issues that our own military sees as valuable contributions to U.S. security interests.  

Discussions with Russia have proven contentious and progress halting, at best. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recently acknowledged that negotiations were not moving forward. We need to stay focused on our long term objectives and show some patience. Presidential elections in Russia have been fueling nationalistic posturing about cooperation with the West, including from Prime Minister, now President-elect, Vladimir Putin. Election politics aside, the issue of defenses has been a cause of serious tensions between the United States and Russia (and the Soviet Union before that) for decades now. More rapid progress may be desirable but cannot be taken for granted. Building the conditions to define common interests and improve stability requires strategic clarity and a steadiness of purpose.
 
Technological and policy frameworks are already in place for the United States to pursue meaningful missile defense cooperation with partners around the world, including Russia. American lawmakers should take time to consider the views of military and political experts  from across the spectrum about the potential advantages of these efforts for protecting American and allied security against 21st century threats.
 
Brig. Gen. Adams (U.S. Army, Ret.), former Deputy U.S. Military Representative to NATO, and Dr. Nolan, international affairs professor at George Washington University, are co-directors of the American Nuclear Security Group, a research consortium based in Washington, D.C.