The withdrawal of the US anti-missile system from the Eastern Europe has led to debates about the prospects of a cooperative security system in Central Eurasia. The anti-missile system announced by George Bush Jr. administration in 2007 had led to much blood boil in the region almost reminiscent of the cold war rivalry. As new US President Barack Obama’s focus on ‘resetting’ relations with Russia pans out, the prospect of Russia-US cooperation appears bright in the Central Eurasian region with Russia already allowing its territory for supplies to Afghanistan and refashioning its stand towards Iran regarding nuclear disarmament.

The anti-missile shield was unveiled in January 2007. It aimed at deploying a radar system in Czech Republic and 10 interceptors in Poland by 2012. The main purpose of anti-missile shield, as stated by the US diplomats, was to intercept potential missile attacks from ‘rogue’ states such as North Korea and Iran. To the objections that the countries like Iran do not have range missiles which can target the US or Europe, the advocates of the shield argued that it may possess these weapons in near future. Both Poland and Czech Republic expressed willingness to host parts of the US missile-defence system on their territories.

While the US justified it on the ground of dangers from the ‘rogue’ states, Russia considered it as a move to undermine Russia’s security and sphere of influence. The US rejection of Russia’s proposal for joint use of Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan gave rise to the Russian suspicion of the use of anti-missile system against Russia and its allies. The Russian opposition found strong resonance it the Munich conference in February 2007. Terming the US plans a disturbing factor then Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the inevitability of an arms race. He also contradicted any prospects of a missile strike by rogue states such as North Korea through Western Europe as it ‘obviously contradicts law of ballistics’, as it can target the US through the Pacific. And regarding Iran Putin asserted that the country is far from capable to make such a strike.

The situation got a new twist after Obama came to power in January 2009. He endeavoured to amend the ways of his predecessor. The prevailing scenario too necessitated a course correction. As per reports, the missile programmes were getting difficult to sustain on the face of its apparent non-success. Since the late 1980s, the US has spent about $150billion to develop such systems. The revelation in Wall Street Journal of 17 September 2009 that, “Iran’s plan to get hold of long-range missiles has not made as rapid of progress as what had previously been expected” might have encouraged the US administration to withdraw the plan. The other factors such as eliciting Russia’s support to counter terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan, to bring Iran to the orbit of nuclear non-proliferation, and differences with the European powers like Germany and France, might have motivated the Obama administration to withdraw the anti-missile plan despite opposition from some of the European allies particularly Poland and Czech republic on which the system was to be based.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev welcomed the US move. Whether the withdrawal will herald a new era of cooperation between the US and Russia or not the coming days will reveal but the fact remains the withdrawal has infused confidence and trust in both the players to devise common approach on a variety of issues among which the two are very important.

First, both the countries have come closer to develop a common approach on the Iran issue. At the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in September 2009 Medvedev described the construction of the second uranium enrichment plant at Qom in Iran as ‘a source of grave concern.’ Russia has already delayed plan to deliver S-300 defence system to Iran. Reportedly, it has refused to sell Iran more advanced S-400 defence system. It too has urged Iran to comply with international rules and regulations regarding nuclear non-proliferation. In this context, the meeting of six parties with Iran on 1 October 2009 in Geneva was a positive step. In the meeting Iran agreed to open its uranium enrichment plant at Qom for inspection. It also agreed to send most of its enriched uranium to Russia and France for turning it into fuel for production of medical isotopes. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director, Mohamed ElBaradei rightly mentioned in an interview that in the case of Iran ‘the language of force is not helpful. It leads to confrontation...’ The IAEA inspection team is scheduled to visit the nuclear site on 25 October 2009. Russia’s attempts towards transparently guarding nuclear programme in Iran may be a positive indication towards the emerging cooperative security in the region.

Second, Russia has expressed its support to the coalition forces to fight against Taliban forces in the region. Though of late the US has realised the Afghan conundrum cannot be resolved by acting solo and it must take into confidence other players like Russia. The US realisation of mutual cooperation and Russia’s forwardness to seize the opportunity has led to an atmosphere of mutual cooperation to fight the Taliban menace. The situation in Afghanistan has become too protracted. Now it is realised with an international framework, and with the cooperation of other regional powers, it will be feasible to contain the menace.