#6
Wall Street Journal Europe
December 10, 2001
Editorial
NATO at 19 1/2
The Atlantic alliance has seen the Western world through half a century of turmoil, underpinning democracy militarily and giving cohesion to a community of nations that share common values. Ententes Cordiales and Triple Alliances have come and gone, but NATO has stood the test of time. This does not however mean that the alliance is trouble-free.
Precisely because of the great value attached to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization it would be imprudent to ignore that the alliance today faces special challenges that, unless tackled, could call into question its future usefulness. NATO tried to deal with some of them at a meeting of foreign ministers with Russia at alliance headquarters in Brussels on Friday.
The compromise that ensued is intended to draw Russia closer to NATO. But no such initiative can ever be taken without raising that nagging question: What is NATO's modern role? Some see it making a transition from a military to political alliance and Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to like that idea. U.S. military leaders, on the other hand, tend to think of this as partly a rationalization by those European members who have made deep cuts in military budgets. Clearly, when it comes to projecting military power into dark corners of the world, the U.S. carries the main burden.
In no order of importance, the NATO is saddled with at least the following problems. One is a growing perception among some foreign-policy elites that the disappearance of the Soviet Union has left it without a raison d'etre. A consequent but different problem is managing the relationship with Russia, a nation whose aspirations remain difficult to discern. NATO's proposed expansion presents a related problem; Moscow wants to veto the Baltic states' entry.
Beyond that, but equally dangerous, are the questions raised about NATO's usefulness to the U.S., or indeed to any of its component states. The liberation of Kosovo, NATO's first hot war, did not leave a good taste in the mouths of some U.S. generals and policy makers, who understandably chafed at combat by committee. The U.S. decision to pick allies on an ad hoc basis for specific mission in Afghanistan may have rankled many in Europe, but it's a direct consequence of Kosovo. All this adds to the doubts that some have about NATO's value.
By deciding on Friday to start work on a new council that will bring Russia in for discussions on issues ranging from civil emergencies to missile defense, NATO was taking a seemingly hedged step. Whenever Russia cannot reach agreement with the 19 members, the ruling council will simply meet without Russia. The difference is important. NATO reaches its decisions through consensus, which means that each member has a veto. Russia doesn't.
Integrating Russia into the family of Western nations -- while still ensuring that it cannot block necessary NATO missions -- is a lofty goal. It is difficult at the same time to ignore that Russia's history of empire building pre-dated the communists. The communists just appropriated the oppressive apparatus and extended Moscow's reach further. Russian reformer Anatoli Chubais reminded us last week that "before Blair stood British colonialism, and before Aznar was Spanish colonialism." But when can the world trust Russia to have turned that page also?
NATO's three newest members -- the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary -- are justifiably cautious and do not think the moment has come. Sources tell us they are aghast that Russia has been allowed to come this far. Nor apparently is U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld completely comfortable with the new coziness. He opposed the designation of the group as "NATO at 20," a title he thought created too much the impression that Russia had been given a veto.
NATO sources say the overall direction of drawing Russia closer came from U.S. President George W. Bush, who recently met with Mr. Putin in Washington and at the Bush Texas ranch. This view prevailed. NATO at 20 does not go as far as British Prime Minister Tony Blair's proposal for a Russia-North Atlantic Council body in which all 20 members have equal decision-making power, but it does move the process of conciliation with Russia forward.
It would be a shame, however, if in trying to rehabilitate Russia, the allies damaged the alliance at a critical time. As the U.S. pursues Osama bin Laden and his terrorists in Afghanistan it must also look at other terrorism-supporting states. The Iraqi regime is high on that list, but it's also a traditional Russian protege. We note also that missile defense is one of the issues that "NATO at 20" will tackle. Russia's opposition to Mr. Bush's missile shield is well known.
A NATO that because of Russian participation -- however limited -- drags its feet on a continuation of the war on terrorism or missile defense is one that will be shunned by U.S. policy makers. The role NATO plays in keeping the U.S. and Europe engaged with one another is too valuable to risk by rushing too fast to accommodate Russia's aspirations for more influence in Western councils.
Next Article