Misha says:
Since the end of the Cold War the question has been asked in Europe and elsewhere whether there still is a continuing need for NATO, and if so what its mission ought to be. The alliance was created to defend Western Europe from the massive tank armies of the Soviet-lead Warsaw Pack. But if the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact are now both gone, then what should be NATO’s new raison d’ętre?
One thing that European and American NATO leaders have decided long ago is that NATO will not become an anti-Russian alliance, or “an alliance of every nation against one nation.” NATO leaders have reassured the Russian Federation that NATO would not pose a threat to Russia.
Bush: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200211/22/eng20021122_107319.shtml
The Eastern European states that were recently added in the last round of NATO expansion were quickly certified as being “democratic” and “meeting western standards” precisely so they could be brought into NATO and the EU as quickly as possible; but arguably the democratic institutions in these countries are not as established or strong as might be desired. Bulgaria, Poland, Romania all still have many problems dating from their pre-NATO days. (They are near the top of the world corruption indexes, for example.)
Georgia and Ukraine are even more unstable and corrupt and even less democratic than their Eastern European neighbors. Ukraine’s electorate is split almost 50/50 between a pro-western region and a pro-Moscow region. The leadership of the country oscillates between the pro-western Timoshenko and the pro-Moscow Yanukovich and the country has experienced several deep political crises in recent years.
Georgia president Mikhail Saakashvili shocked the world when he ordered federal police into the streets to attack peaceful opposition demonstrators, cracking heads and breaking bones. Several hundred demonstrators were so severely injured that they required hospitalization.
Georgia’s opposition is still claiming that Georgia lacks basic democratic freedoms and the last elections were fraudulent. Georgia’s television media is all government controlled. Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili has obtained millions of dollars from firms doing business in Georgia, which funds are laundered through offshore bank accounts that he and his family control. Massive opposition protests continue in Georgia on a daily basis. Most importantly Georgia has two unstable breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia and both of these regions have formally requested international recognition of their independence. This is something that Moscow previously rejected but which is now being reconsidered in light of the recent western recognition of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia.
NATO originally had only a few Western European members, all of which had some actual connection to the North Atlantic (such as Great Britain, West Germany, etc.) NATO’s original mission was to defend these Western European countries against the mighty armies of the Soviet Empire, whose tanks faced down NATO all across the plains of central Europe. But now, with the demise of the USSR and Warsaw Pact, and the Russian demilitarization of their former buffer zone in Eastern Europe, NATO has become an organization searching for a new reason to exist. Clearly just keeping the old reason would make mush sense. (Can’t have an organization dedicated to protecting you from a threat that no longer exists.)
When they formulated the new reasons for NATO’s existence, western leaders carefully avoided portraying the alliance as “an alliance of every country in Europe except Russia.” They stated on many occasions that NATO is not a threat to Russia and it should not be viewed as such.
Viewed from the standpoint of Germany or France, there is no benefit to their security from expanding NATO onto former Soviet territory. Indeed, given how unstable Ukraine and Georgia are, there is a very real likelihood of military conflict breaking out there, and given the geography of the region, Russia is very likely to become involved in any future conflict in those spaces. Therefore appending such countries to NATO only makes a conflict between NATO and Russia more likely. While some American neo-cons might pant and pine for just such a conflict with Russia (World War III) this is not the purpose for which the NATO alliance was created.
NATO is a treaty organization between its member nations, and the treaty (or Charter) pledges each nation to defend every other nation in the event that it is attacked. If any member of NATO is attacked, then all other members of NATO are automatically bound by article 5 of the NATO treaty to protect that nation.
NATO makes a lot of sense when it is viewed as a pact between the highly advanced democracies of Western Europe, such as the UK, Germany and France. Russia is not about to attack Germany, France or England any time soon, with or without NATO. But the fact that these already strong countries have all pledged themselves to each other’s mutual defense makes them stronger.
NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it is just that; it is a treaty organization between all the nations who participate in NATO. The NATO charter gives each signatory nation certain rights and responsibilities. One of the key rights is the right to invoke Article 5, in the event of foreign military attack. Article 5 of the NATO charter embodies the principle of collective defense: an attack on one is an attack on all.
The last time Article 5 of the NATO Charter was invoked it was done by the United States, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. European NATO AWACS aircraft were quickly transferred to the USA after the 9-11 attacks, to help patrol US airspace during the US no-fly period immediately after the attacks. One of the NATO members was attacked (the United States) and it invoked Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which compelled other NATO members to come to its assistance.
Source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2001/5447.htm
Now I will offer you a very plausible scenario of something that might happen if Georgia or Ukraine were allowed to enter the NATO treaty. Let’s say that Russia recognizes the independence of one of Georgia’s self-declared breakaway republics, which straddle the Russian-Georgian border, such as Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Georgia would be likely to intervene by sending its military to those regions. Russia of course has the capacity to pour massive troops and tanks across this border and into these breakaway regions. (Russia already has its troops in these regions as peacekeepers.) Now let’s say that fighting breaks out between Georgian and Russian troops alone the border. It will not take Russia’s much larger and more powerful army long to get the upper hand. Now Georgia’s president will claim that his country is “under attack” and he would invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter (which compels all the other NATO members to come to Georgia’s defense).
At this point NATO leaders in the West would have an important decision to make: they must decide whether to honor Article 5 and send military forces to Georgia or to simply ignore Georgia’s request. If they do send forces to Georgia to fight against nuclear-armed Russia, this is a plausible scenario for World War III. But if they not send forces then it sets the precedent that Article 5 of the NATO Charter is a dead letter, and NATO is a house of straw (a paper tiger). Russia can huff and puff and blow NATO’s house down any time it wants, simply by intervening militarily in its own back yard (where Russia’s ability to project forces is very strong and NATO’s ability is extremely weak).
During the recent crisis over Kosovo, the West was able to simply do what it wanted and ignore Russia’s loud protests. But this is because Kosovo is a place where NATO is strong and Russia has almost no ability to project its forces (as Russia does not share a border with this region). But if you consider Georgia (or Ukraine) by contrast, Russia does share a border, and Russia certainly would be capable of project massive forces there. Rather it is NATO that would be challenged trying to get sufficient forces into these regions.
Explain to me please how the security of existing NATO Treaty members such as France and Germany is enhanced by bringing new members into their little “collective security” club, where “an attack on one is an attack on all.” Clearly the security of the stable, advanced, democratic countries in NATO is not enhanced by expanding the NATO circle to include countries in the former Soviet Union, which are all unstable, corrupt undemocratic, and rife with smoldering conflicts to varying degrees. A NATO alliance expanded to include such countries does NOT enhance the security of the existing NATO partners, but rather it creates a whole new set of security THREATS for them. A Germany that guarantees the security of France and England (through NATO) is highly unlikely to get into a war with Russia, as Russia is unlikely to attack France or England. But a Germany (and France and England) who “guaranty” the security of Georgia or Ukraine are much more likely to get involved in a war with Russia, as the scenario of a war involving Russia there is quite realistic.
As I said earlier, after the demise of the USSR, there was a debate about what NATO’s future should be (if any). The Europeans prefer a cautious, measured approach, because they do not want to be seen as threatening Moscow’s security or acting in ways that are contrary to Russia’s interests. They are Russia’s neighbors and they will always be Russia’s neighbors. They view Russian trade as very important and they want to expand that trade. They look for ways of expanding collective security through diplomacy.
But on the American side, at least within certain neo-conservative circles, there is more of a tendency to transform the post-Soviet NATO from a purely defensive alliance to an aggressive alliance, or an “alliance of every country in Europe against one country in Europe.” This could already be seen in NATO’s 1999 attack of Serbia over Kosovo, which violated NATO’s founding Charter, which holds that NATO is purely a defensive organization.
Of course the transformed steroid-ripped NATO advocated by American neo-conservatives would be bound to concern and anger the Russian Federation, which would be its proximate target. Such American neo-cons are much more willing than the Europeans to take risks by challenging or even to provoking Russia. For example, in the scenario I gave above, of a military crisis between Georgia and Russia which comes to blows (which is extremely plausible and realistic), these neo-con Americans would be happy to “dare” Russia to do something, and risk Georgia invoking Article 5. The American neo-cons are probably convinced that Russia would be afraid and would not do anything, even when provoked by a hothead like Saakashvili; but that is by no means a sure thing, and the risks to the whole world would be enormous if Russia is provoked to take military action. The American neo-cons are cocky and arrogant and obviously don’t think through all the implications of the policies they advocate. One only needs to do consider the war in Iraq to see reckless disregard for consequences and dangers.
Some people feel that by expanding NATO (and the EU) to include ever more countries, that the level of security (and democracy) in those countries can be somehow instantly transformed up to the level of NATO (and the EU). There has been a tendency to rush through a set of reforms in the target countries, to implement the rule of law, open elections and the other institutions and accoutrements of democracy. But to some extent these efforts have amounted to “putting lipstick on a pig” to pretty it up. Just beneath the surface in countries such as Poland, Czech Republic, Romania and Bulgaria corruption is rife. In many regions of these countries people live now as they lived for hundreds of years (with horse-drawn wagons and public toilets that are simply a hole in the ground). Perhaps NATO (and EU) leaders optimistically felt that these countries could “catch up” with full Western European standards later. In some cases this optimism is well placed. But if the recent Eastern European entrants into NATO and the EU posed challenges for those two organizations, then the addition of the former Soviet countries such as Ukraine and Georgia could well stretch those organizations to the breaking point.
While the desire might be to elevate the security of Ukraine and Georgia up to Western European standards (which includes NATO membership), the actual reality may be to weaken the alliance and pull it down to the levels of Ukraine and Georgia. A “collective security” treaty organization is only as good as its weakest link. By adding in new links into the NATO chain, which are indisputably weaker than any other links, the overall strength and credibility of NATO can only suffer.
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
reddit