October 2011 • Note •
When NATO member states met in Lisbon on 19th and 20th November 2010 to decide on a new Strategic Concept, they made Missile Defense the « keystone » of the Atlantic Alliance. On account of millennium dialectics of the sword and the shield, the laws of the « technological world » and ballistic proliferation, we cannot treat this extremely strategic question with an attitude of denial. And yet it would be foolhardy to content ourselves with a shield granted by the United States without being involved in its creation. Finally, antimissile defence must not be a pretext for Europe to close in on itself. The main objective is for Europe to be in a position to take up international political challenges.
It is an established fact that the United States has developed and implemented antimissile technology. Russia, with its more meagre resources, is doing the same. Within the Euro-Atlantic area, the deployment of antimissile systems will enable us to counter threats connected with the proliferation of ballistic technology in the Middle East. European security will consequently be strengthened.
However, it would be foolhardy to content ourselves with a shield granted by the United States without ensuring that European allies take an active part in its creation. In the same way, it would be a mistake to regard antimissile systems as a substitute for the strength of weapons, whether nuclear or traditional. Consequently, as an experienced military power, France should not restrict its involvement to a « share ». It needs to promote its technologies, put forward its military capacities and pose as a pilot nation. Finally, antimissile defence must not be a pretext for turning away from the rest of the world. The relative decline of the West is resulting in more active involvement in the management of regional and international imbalances, by means of weapons amongst other things. There will be no salvation via technology.