.... love/hate relation****p seems to
be an enduring, if cyclical, thing.
Perhaps, by now, it might validly be called
"the curse of Europe".
Best - - Henry
For educational purposes only:
From: The Jamestown Foundation
(Eurasia daily monitor)
NATO MEMBERS STATING THE CASE FOR
GEORGIAN AND UKRAINIAN MEMBER****P
ACTION PLANS
By Vladimir Socor
Friday, March 21, 2008
The German government''s all-out, public campaign
against Georgian and Ukrainian Member****p Action
Plans (MAPs) risks splitting NATO ahead of the a
lliance''s April 2-4 Bucharest summit. Germany
alone has embarked on such a public crusade, in the
avowed expectation that other NATO countries would
follow Berlin''s lead. If so, such countries would in fact
be deferring not so much to Germany as to Russia.
Real differences over the Georgian and Ukrainian MAPs
could have been resolved in the course of existing NATO
consultation processes, without public confrontation
among allies. However, the German government and
Chancellor Angela Merkel personally short-circuited
those consultation processes, which were set to continue
after the March 6 Brussels meeting of ministers of foreign
affairs of NATO countries. Instead, Merkel held talks
two days later with Russian President Vladimir Putin
in Moscow to establish a common front against the
Georgian and Ukrainian MAPs.
Furthermore, Berlin has become a most diligent compiler
of anti-MAP arguments and their spigot in pre-summi
t conferences among allies, thus singularizing Germany
in this regard also. Germany gives the impression of riding
far out in front of this campaign. Berlin diplomats are
hinting that some other NATO countries would also follow
the German lead publicly in due course. Such hints unwittingly
reinforce the impression that Germany claims a leading role
in opposing the MAPs.
Berlin''s anti-MAP arguments (see EDM, March 13, 20) are
more sophisticated and open to reasoned debate, compared
with Moscow''s vituperations and threats. Nevertheless, the
political consequence of Berlin''s public campaign is to
expose and widen a rift in NATO, inevitably prompting the
MAP sup****ters to go public as well.
President George W. Bush and other U.S. leaders reaffirmed
their sup****t for Georgia''s MAP aspirations during President
Mikheil Saakashvili''s March 19-20 visit to Wa****ngton. ""I
believe that NATO would benefit from Georgian member****p,
"" Bush stated at the joint press conference in the White House
with Saakashvili (White House transcript, March 19),
clearly implying that Georgia ought to be considered on its
merits and in light of NATO interests. The United States
seems set to press for a political decision regarding Georgian
and Ukrainian MAPs to be adopted at the Bucharest summit.
Also on March 19, ten NATO member countries wrote to the
alliance''s Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, urging
that Georgia and Ukraine be granted MAPs at the upcoming
summit (BNS, March 20). Canada and the countries that j
oined NATO in the two enlargement rounds -- three Baltic
states, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania,
Bulgaria, and Slovenia -- co-signed the do***ent. The
missing signature is Hungary''s, whose Socialist government
(unlike Socialists in the governments of co-signatory countries)
conducts a Hungarian mini-version of Ostpolitik with Russia.
The do***ent argues that it is in NATO''s interest and to the
benefit of Euro-Atlantic security and stability to integrate Georgia
and Ukraine further. It recalls that each round of enlargement
has, despite initial doubts, strengthened the Alliance.
Furthermore, a negative response to Georgia and Ukraine
would generate doubts about NATO''s continuation of its
Open Door policy, would deprive Ukraine and Georgia of a
chance to choose their place in the European security architecture,
and would leave the impression that outside factors
were able to exert influence on the alliance ''s decision making.
Referring to their own experience with MAPs, the signatory
countries underscore the value of this tool in promoting internal
reforms in the aspirant countries and stimulating them to
improve relations with neighboring countries. Furthermore,
reforms in Georgia and Ukraine at present compare favorably
with the situation in which current MAP countries were at the
beginning of their first MAP cycles.
Consequently, the ten countries argue, the MAP debate is
testing NATO''s adherence to its own principles and procedures.
They urge that Georgia and Ukraine should each be granted
a MAP based upon their merits and performance, as well as
taking their distinct situations into account. Thus, inviting the
two countries to participate in MAPs at the Bucharest summit
would be essential to advancing the goal of creating a Europe
whole and free (""Non-Paper on Granting Member****p Action
Plans to Georgia and Ukraine at the NATO Summit in
Bucharest,"" March 19).
For its part, Russia seeks to become a part of NATO''s internal
debate and NATO decisions through wedge-driving among NATO
members. Moscow insinuates that the Georgian and Ukrainian
MAPs are essentially a U.S. project that would spoil European
members countries'' relations with Russia. It tries to disparage the
pro-MAP countries as mere ""newcomers"" to the alliance --
a tactic designed to foster a sense of grievance in Paris and Berlin
over the erosion of their influence. And it depicts the ten countries''
appeal as a Wa****ngton-directed move to divide Germany and
France from other countries in the alliance, according to
Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin''s reaction on instructions from
Moscow (Interfax, March 20).
The ultimate decision on Georgian and Ukrainian MAPs will
almost certainly not be taken before the end of the NATO summit
in Bucharest.
|
