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Russia no longer represents a threat for US interests -- and, it is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.
Serbian News Network - SNN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antic.org/
