New York Times
July 23, 2001
Russia's Eventual Place in NATO
By TIMOTHY GARTON ASH
Timothy Garton Ash, a fellow of St. Anthony's College, Oxford, and the
Hoover Institution, is the author, most recently, of "History of the
Present: Sketches and Dispatches from Europe in the 1990's."
STANFORD, Calif. - President George W. Bush has been bold in his design
for a Europe whole and free. Now he needs to be bolder still. On his
first trip to Europe, last month, he made an impressive speech in Warsaw
in which he argued that the European Union and NATO, those key
institutions of Europe and the West, should grow decisively eastward.
How far eastward, of course, remains the question.
When Mr. Bush meets Vladimir Putin today, he should express clearly that
his vision includes a future in which a democratic Russia is eventually
embraced as part of NATO.
In Warsaw, Mr. Bush stepped in that direction. He said the question of
membership in NATO for eligible and willing democracies should no longer
be "whether" but only "when."
"No more Yaltas," he declared, implying that Russia should have no veto
over NATO membership for the Baltic states. Most intriguingly, he said
that the new Europe must also be "open to" Russia. Subsequently, he went
on to establish a good personal rapport with President Putin.
Since then, however, Russia has reiterated its strong objections to the
Bush administration's missile defense proposals, as well as to NATO
enlargement, and has signed a friendship treaty with China - nicely
characterized by one Russian commentator as "an act of friendship
against America."
In response, two very different constituencies may be urging Mr. Bush to
dilute the brave commitment of the Warsaw speech. Some Western Europeans
want him to compromise on NATO enlargement, especially with regard to
the Baltic states, in order to ease Russia's anxiety. Some American
enthusiasts for missile defense may also suggest a retreat in order to
increase the chances of Russia agreeing to some version of missile
defense.
He should resist these siren calls. Instead, he should come out and say,
with full conviction, that a democratic Russia definitely belongs in
Europe and in the West, and that it follows that the key institution of
the current geopolitical West, NATO, should in principle also be open to
Russia's inclusion.
Taking this step, of course, will require more daring than any Western
leader has shown - even those to whom I would instinctively look for
such imaginative foresight.
The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, who will host the summit on NATO
enlargement in Prague next year, argued eloquently in a speech this past
May that the Baltic states belong in the Western alliance and that "if
NATO moves closer to Russia's borders, it brings closer stability,
security, democracy and an advanced political culture, which is
obviously in Russia's essential interest."
That is absolutely right. Indeed, the first President Bush presented the
same argument to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 when proposing the
enlargement of NATO to include East Germany.
Yet even Mr. Havel has not pushed this thinking far enough to suggest
Russia's eventual participation in NATO. So long as we do not allow for
this possibility, young, pro-Western Russians may understandably feel
that NATO enlargement is directed against Russia.
Obviously, a NATO that included a democratic Russia would be a very
different NATO. But an alliance that incorporates all the current
applicant states, from Estonia to Bulgaria, in addition to Poland,
Hungary and the Czech Republic, will already be a very different
alliance. It will be an alliance of collective security, a guarantor of
peace between and within its member states as well as against diverse
and unpredictable external threats, rather than against the single
common enemy of the cold war. (Though some may think that China has the
potential to be the new common enemy of Russia, Europe and the West, we
would be very ill- advised to risk making that a self- fulfilling
prophecy.)
Just as obviously, Russia today is nowhere near to meeting the standards
of stable democracy, the rule of law and civilian control over the
military that might qualify it for NATO membership. Its current
president and its army have an appalling record in Chechnya. Especially
given the new character of the alliance, which pays close attention to
how its new members treat their own minorities and immediate neighbors,
those standards for membership should not be lowered in any way, as they
have been for Turkey. Moreover, Russia's political elites, unlike those
in other Eastern European states, are not certain they want to join
anyway. So the prospect of Russian entry into NATO is many years
distant. But this does not alter the force of the long-term message.
In the meantime, we should be very clear to whom this message is
addressed. It should be addressed not just to Mr. Putin and the present
government, but to all the new Russias: to the bright young Russians I
meet at the European Affairs Society in Oxford or at the coffeehouse in
Stanford, to the emerging middle class, and to the next generation of
political leaders, whose thoughts about whether Russia belongs in the
West will be greatly influenced by whether the West itself believes
Russia should be part of it.
The same long-term message to a democratic Russia should come from the
European Union. It's not for the American president to speak for the
E.U. But I believe European leaders should themselves express a
willingness to keep the door open.
I can hear already the cries of "dangerous lunatic!" arising from the
foreign policy establishment. But one heard the same cries 10 years ago,
immediately after the end of the cold war, when one argued that Eastern
Europe should be brought into the E.U. and NATO. And 20 years ago, when
one argued that the West should actively support the peaceful
emancipation of Eastern Europe from Soviet domination. The idea of
Russia in NATO, too, may eventually become conventional wisdom. Mr. Bush
will show vision, and have a positive impact on the Russia to come, by
advancing that possibility now.
Serbian News Network - SNN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antic.org/
