The seminal, transformative issues
that North Atlantic Treaty Organization members
bitterly disagree on could make for an acrimonious
summit in Riga, Latvia, on Tuesday and Wednesday.
If testy exchanges do not flare up, tension will
remain just below the surface, straining relations
between NATO nations and leading to a stalemate.
But if the parties involved are willing to
countenance some truly
spirited debate, reckon with
the issues that divide them and begin resolving
them, the summit (coupled with a follow-up in
2008) could be remembered as a watershed in the
history of the alliance. Such an outcome would be
alternately noted with alarm and cheer around the
world.
NATO members must grapple with two
major propositions, both advanced by Washington:
Should NATO claim a more global role, and should
it be enlarged to include Ukraine and Georgia as
full members? The reaction in Europe to these two
proposals ranges from wariness to explicit
negativity. Moscow, meanwhile, sees its regional
interests especially threatened by the second.
'Mission creep' The prospect of
a global NATO would involve a deepening of
existing partnerships with countries such as
Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan.
Full membership of these countries is not
yet envisaged, not only because it would require a
redrafting of the Washington Treaty, but also
because it would have unforeseeable consequences
in the event that Article 5 (the mutual-assistance
clause) were to be applied. Europeans are
skeptical of the proposal mainly out of a fear
that such a global NATO would draw US attention
still further away from Europe. That concern is
especially vivid for the new member states from
the former communist bloc. The prospect of
Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership could,
however, help reassure these countries that no
threat will re-emerge at their frontiers.
The Europeans are also averse to having a
global NATO compete with or substitute for the
United Nations. A global NATO could (harking back
to the ethos of then US secretary of state
Madeleine Albright, circa June 26, 2000, Warsaw)
come to act as the self-appointed defender, real
or imagined, of a "community of democracies". A
global NATO that was dominated by the United
States could be tempted to act unilaterally when
the UN Security Council would refrain from giving
its consent for certain actions. To avoid that
prospect, a close cooperation between NATO and the
United Nations in peacekeeping operations and in
providing humanitarian aid must be upheld.
A third, and final, argument against a
global NATO is that it would lead to
countervailing blocs. However, such a phenomenon
is already in the making in the form of the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) of which
Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan
and recently Uzbekistan are members. India,
Pakistan, Mongolia and Iran have observer status
in the SCO. Iran has applied for full membership.
The United States has been denied observer
status and is following the evolution of the SCO
closely, especially after this organization
recently announced it was creating an energy club.
Given that the gas reserves of Russia, Iran, and
Central Asian states make up more than 50% of the
world's proven reserves, this has led to fears of
a formation of a "Gas OPEC" within the SCO.
Enlargement US suggestions to
enlarge NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia would
expand the alliance into the heartland of the
former Soviet Union. This has led to a fierce
reaction by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov, who has characterized a Ukrainian NATO
membership as constituting a clear "geopolitical
shift".
But this grievance does not take
into account that this geopolitical shift already
took place 15 years ago, with the breakup of the
Soviet Union. Since then, Russia has found itself
surrounded by a half-circle of independent and
sovereign states. This should not be seen, on its
face, as an extraordinary or threatening state of
affairs.
Ukraine is broadly considered a
pivotal state. Russia plus Ukraine would re-create
a formidable power to the east of the European
Union. New EU members, not only the exposed Baltic
states but also Poland, would certainly feel
threatened by some kind of Russian-Ukrainian
reunification. While it is correct, as many
Europeans maintain, to handle Russian
sensitivities with care, that need not entail
granting Russian veto rights over an enlarged
alliance.
In the case of a possible
Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership, three
simple questions should be asked. First, are
Ukraine and Georgia democratic European countries?
If they are, they have the full right to be
invited by the alliance to become members (Article
10 of the Washington Treaty). Second, does Russia
have the right to restrict the sovereign choices
of the Ukrainian and Georgian governments? If not,
Ukraine and Georgia are completely free to accept
the invitation.
Finally, is NATO an
anti-Russian alliance? Although NATO started as an
anti-Soviet alliance, it changed its objectives,
strategy and membership dramatically after the
demise of the Soviet Union. Russia recognized this
fact when it became an official partner of NATO
and set up what is called today the NATO-Russia
Council.
The NATO membership of Ukraine
and Georgia could play an important role in
safeguarding the independence and still-fragile
democracies of both countries, in view of
anti-democratic developments in Russia and
President Vladimir Putin's roll-back strategy of
Western influence in Russia's near abroad - which
has already been dramatically successful in
Uzbekistan.
A reordering of the world in a
multipolar direction has already begun. The
question is not should NATO remain a regional
organization or become a global actor, but rather
what role should NATO play on the world stage?
Although it may seem paradoxical,
extending NATO's reach and role could improve the
world's perception of the alliance. If NATO
represents only narrowly defined Western economic
and security interests, it will certainly
exacerbate existing divisions in its geopolitical
environment. If, on the other hand, it plays a
constructive role, working as an implementer of
international law in close cooperation with the
United Nations, it will contribute to a more
stable and safe world.
Marcel H Van
Herpen is director of the Cicero Foundation,
www.cicerofoundation.org, a think-tank based in
the Netherlands.
