Decisions, decisions
Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008
There have been frequent concerns expressed in Washington about the future of NATO, arising out of the short sighted and potentially dangerous unwillingness of many European NATO members to spend money on defence and/or deploy troops abroad. Rows over this have been brought to a head because of Afghanistan.
Yet ironically there is a queue to join. France may well be reintegrated into the central command structure. This week in Bucharest, other countries will be seeking membership. Croatia seems the most likely candidate to be accepted; Greece may veto Macedonia’s application and Albania may be rejected in the backwash.
Two countries, however, provide a flashpoint, namely Georgia and Ukraine. It is true that public opinion in both countries is divided on NATO accession, but the political elite is firmly in favour. Germany is the most hostile to their membership, curiously citing the view that the populations must overwhelmingly want it. This does not exactly correspond to their view of the role of the public in regard to the EU non-constitutional constitutional Lisbon Treaty! By contrast President Bush in Kyiv yesterday, strongly backs Ukraine.
Recently the Ukrainian Foreign Minister was in London and got the impression that the British Government would support their candidacy. In February in a conversation in Kyiv with President Yushchenko, NATO relationship was high on his agenda. His belief is that Ukraine should be free to join, despite German antipathy and outright Russian hostility.
Russia today, like Russia throughout much of its history, feels nervous about being surrounded, especially by Ukraine and Georgia as NATO members, with which it has such longstanding links. President Yuschenko has given the explicit assurance that no missile will be placed on Ukrainian soil.
So we have as much disagreement over membership as we do deployment. The Ukrainians desperately want to show their independence from Russia. Of course Russia cannot have the power of veto over NATO membership, but do we wish further to antagonise Russia in its currently assertive mood?
The core element of NATO’s mission has always been clear, namely mutual protection. Given the limits of NATO’s capabilities, can that central doctrine of mutual self defence apply so far east?
Europeans like ourselves have been able to enjoy the military protection that the United States provides us through NATO. But NATO is now split over new members, and Afghanistan reflects the limits of its capabilities.
For Britain, failure by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan could provoke a strengthened view across the Atlantic that US military protection in Europe should be reduced or curtailed. It has to be a core objective for us to keep the US militarily and strategically engaged.
NATO leaders in Bucharest this week have some tough decisions to take, which could potentially impact our lives for decades to come.