STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------- ListBot Sponsor -------------------------- Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Le Monde Views US Efforts To Bring Russia Into NATO, Impact for Europe Le Monde July 17, 2001 [translation fo personal use only] Analysis by Daniel Vernet: "Will George Bush Bring Russia into NATO?" A decade after the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union, will George W. Bush succeed where his father failed; namely, define a "new international order?" An order in which Russia would be integrated because the area of conflicts of interests had shifted toward Asia? We are still far from that, and a number of decisions taken by the new Republican administration would suggest, rather, that the path chosen is that of the most traditional confrontation. However, the tone has changed. During his visit to Europe, the US President could not find enough kind words for Russia and for Vladimir Putin. His entourage, although full of veterans of the East-West conflict who served their apprenticeship under Ford, Reagan, or Bush Senior, have prepared a rhetoric with resolutely innovative ambitions. From that viewpoint, Russia no longer represents a threat for US interests -- and, it is added in Washington, for those of the Europeans, which implies a redefinition of transatlantic relations. At the most, it is "a problem," to use French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine's expression. Hence we must stop thinking in Cold War terms and believing that international stability continues to be ensured by East-West agreements; often purely US-Soviet agreements dating back around 30 years. That is true both of the 1972 ABM treaty and of the SALT and START treaties on strategic arms limitation and reduction. The aim of the ABM treaty -- which confined the two great power within narrow limits for building antimissile systems -- was to guarantee nuclear deterrence; that is, to maintain the possibility of the camps' mutual destruction by a nuclear holocaust. Who will serious believe today that Russia is preparing to launch intercontinental missiles against US cities and vice versa? asks a former senior Pentagon official who has reenlisted with Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush's defense secretary. Of course the Americans would like to amend or even scrap the ABM treaty in order to be able to launch their missile defense (MD) program. But that is not just a tactical aim, the same personality continues: "To put an end to those treaties is to put an end to the spirit of the Cold War," he says. A document such as the ABM treaty requires the existence of an enemy such as we had for 40 years after World War II. That era is over. "In order to turn our backs on the Cold War, we must put an end to the agreements which governed the military relations between two potential enemies." The first reaction of the Russians -- and the Europeans -- is to view these fine words as a kind of camouflage aimed at pushing through decisions calling into question the international status quo. But perhaps it would be necessary to ask ourselves whether, beyond an immediate concern, the Americans are not aiming eventually at a complete redefinition of their relations with Russia and, through that, even the setting-up of a new security organization in Europe. Decisions unpleasant in principle for Moscow are being prepared: In addition to the antimissile defense program, a new enlargement of the Atlantic alliance, starting from 2002, which could include one or several Baltic states; that is, for the first time, republics which belonged to the former USSR but also to the former czarist Russia. Will Russia receive compensation? In 1997 -- two years before NATO's first eastward enlargement (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic), Moscow obtained a quid pro quo: The signing in Paris of the fundamental act on relations between Russia and NATO, and the setting-up of the NATO-Russia joint council. That offer of cooperation fell short of the Russians' expectations. They had been allowed to believe, among other things, that they would have a "right of inspection" over NATO's affairs; they were hoping for a "right of veto." The Kosovo war showed them that the joint council could not prevent the Atlantic alliance's 19 members from disregarding Moscow's objections. And so the Russians stayed away from that council's meetings for several months and are now rejecting all the proposals for relaunching made by the Westerners. Another form of compensation for NATO's expansion could be financial. Although it is not the official position, some people in Washington are talking about a cancellation of the debt contracted by the former USSR: An act of generosity which would not cost the Americans too much since Russia's main creditors are Europeans and, in the first place, Germans. In fact, when the Kremlin talks about a quid pro quo, it is thinking in political terms -- for instance, "Russia's entry into NATO's political organization," one of Vladimir Putin's spokesmen says. During his meeting with George W. Bush in Ljubljana, the Russian president took out a 1954 note in which Moscow asked to join the Atlantic alliance. "Achieve Its Destiny" Is that a purely theoretical view? Again in Ljubljana, George W. Bush stated that NATO's door is open, that Russia's destiny is in Europe, and that all European countries fulfilling the conditions are entitled to join NATO. A few days later, the State Department's spokesman was more precise. Asked whether the US position is still as negative as that set out by Madeleine Albright on behalf of the Clinton administration, Richard Boucher replied: "No, I do not think that I would say exactly that... I would say that this administration believes that the door should be open, and that Russia's destiny is clearly in Europe. And we intend to work with Russia in order to help it achieve its destiny." The Russians are wondering whether this is a trick aimed at weakening their vigilance, or whether the proposal is serious, although it concerns the long term. Their conclusion is that they have nothing to lose by acting as if the US attitude were serious. If that were the case, it would bring a kind of consummation to the anti-Cold War refrains which President Bush and his advisers have struck up; it would complete the transformation of NATO as an instrument of the Cold War into a pan-European security organization. And it would force the Europeans to carry out a revolution in their strategic thinking for which they are far from being prepared. ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
