The decisions of the Bucharest Summit on Membership Action Plans seem to satisfy most parties - although initial positions suggested a possible failure of the summit. NATO took its time and gave priority to its missions over the historic opportunity for expansion, a move that increases doubts regarding the Alliance's global role and readiness to execute leadership.
NATO
once again proved it is better at diplomacy than at military action. In
Bucharest both "expansionists" and "cautionists" were able to claim success, partial
though, but very important psychologically - as unity is a rare commodity in
today's NATO dealings. One single political decision seems to have tipped the
balance against the 2expansionists". According to the British press, PM Gordon
Brown decided not to put his weight in favour of the Ukraine-Georgia MAPs,
making it impossible for the US, Canada and smaller Eastern-European allies to
fend off the opposition of members of the "old Europe."
High hopes and grand ideas from across the
Atlantic will have to wait. The "Realpolitik" of political uncertainty, financial
struggle, and a distant war that NATO claims it cannot afford to lose prevailed
for the time being. But be careful with over-estimating the importance of
Afghanistan at the expense of further enlargement. Beware of Ukraine or Georgia
becoming for NATO's what Turkey is for the EU - a forever candidate. Geopolitics
do not accept a vacuum.
As
for now both Juschchenko and Saakaschvili clapped hands in rejoice. But where
will Bucharest leave the NATO hopefuls remains to be seen, as December comes
after the US presidential elections. Even if MAPs are introduced then, the
delay may fuel anti-Western and pro-Russia attitudes. Elections in Ukraine and
Georgia come sooner than NATO, and Moscow has both the means and will to exert
its influence.
Both
Ukraine and Georgia constitute crucial geostrategic areas. NATO's expansion
into those areas will shift the geostrategic balance dramatically. From that
point of view it would be far more important than moving the Alliance's borders
eastwards in Europe, what was symbolic to the end of the Yalta system. For NATO
it would be as much a historic opportunity as a challange. And NATO seems to
have just taken time to think, whether to take that chance and face that
challange, judging for the time being that there are more urgent issues to cope
with, primarily Afghanistan.
But sooner or later the question will have to be
answered of what is more important and whether both a breakthrough enlargement
and crucial operations are feasible at the same time. So delaying the MAPs for
the both Russia's neighbours should not by any way mean shelving the issue indefinitely.
On the contrary - the sooner a serious discussion is launched the better, and
both sides, NATO and the applicants, should come together in December ready to
strike deals.
Whether
the Afghan mission could be accomplished at the price of delaying a major
expansion is not clear now. Both military, political and financial obstacles
may come in the way because the declarations made before and in Bucharest may
not be enough to prevail on the battlefield. At some point additional help -
notably from Russia - may become indispensable. And at that time Russia may be
already a double winner, gaining foot in Kiev and Tbilisi for another decade or
so. The next US president may not be as interested in expanding the Alliance
and NATO may end up losing a historic opportunity and that applies equally to both
countries.
But a
majority of crucial NATO members decided not to add a "political overstretch"
to what they see as military and financial one in the current situation. The
Alliance has taken time to rebind, and perhaps rethink its posture. Only if
these result in a more cohesive, stronger, and more capable Alliance - and one
willing still to promote collective security, democracy and rule of law outside
its current borders - could the delay on Ukraine and Georgia be accepted. Otherwise
NATO may end up claiming victory away from home, but inviting instability and
danger on its doorstep.
Marek Swierczynski is a journalist with a special interest in defence and security matters and and a member of the Polish Euro-Atlantic Society.
- 12
April 7, 2008
Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Platinum Contributor (350)
Is the Alliance 'more cohesive, stronger, and more capable' in the wake of Bucharest? The evidence is mixed but on balance I think - not.
What are the essential agreements arrived at at Bucharest? NATO will not be expanding to Ukraine and Georgia. The US, Poland, and Czech Republic have NATO's permission to proceed with the anti-missle defenses. France will contribute 700 troops to paper over the cracks in Afghanistan - the US contributes another 3200 troops, and Germany contributes nothing more. France is praised to the skies, the US continues to take abuse; nothing has really changed much.
The crackup continues.....