Senior UK Conservative - Say No To NATO Expansion

By Cernig

Sir Malcolm Rifkin is one of the senior figures in the UK's Conservative Party - a member of Thatcher's cabinet and a former Defence Secretary. Today in the Daily Telegraph he writes a compelling account of why, contra Bush, Georgia and Ukraine should not be allowed to join NATO.

The crucial point, often overlooked, is that Nato is not just a political association of friendly states with common values, like the Council of Europe. Nor is it only concerned with the promotion of security, stability and economic prosperity, like the EU.

Nato was devised as, and still is, more than anything else, a defence pact, with its member states committed to collective security. These are more than words. Under Article 5 of the Nato Treaty, every member state is committed to come to the aid of any other member state, including by the use of armed force, if such a state is subject to armed attack.

If Ukraine or Georgia become full members, Britain and other members could find themselves required to contemplate war or other forms of military intervention if either of these countries faced armed attack.

This cannot be considered a hypothetical concern. For some years, Georgia has been unable to enjoy full territorial integrity because of the de facto secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both secessionist regions enjoy strong Russian support and there have already been clashes between Georgian troops and those of the two breakaway regions.

Would it really be wise for Nato member states to accept a legal obligation, not just an option, to come to the aid of Georgia if either or both of these secessionist regimes, with or without the support of Moscow, continued to use armed force against the Georgian government?

The situation is not so serious as regards Ukraine. Its government is in full control of its territory and armed attack from any quarter is highly unlikely. But the issue of Nato membership deeply divides the population, with opinion surveys suggesting a substantial majority against Ukraine joining.

Ukraine has a large Russian-speaking minority and Crimea is an ethnic Russian territory that was only joined to Ukraine in the 1950s. Relations between Ukraine and Russia remain tense, and the question of Ukraine's orientation towards the West is the seminal issue of Ukrainian politics, with the population almost equally divided.

Against that background, one has to ask again whether it would be wise for America, Britain and other Nato members to enter into a treaty obligation to protect Ukraine when that commitment might involve the use of our armed forces. Nato membership does not just give us the option to become involved: it obliges us to become involved, a quite different matter.

There are ways in which we can give substantial help to Ukraine and Georgia without the risks involved in full Nato membership. In part, this should be through closer association with the EU with the prospect, one day, of full membership.

So far as Nato is concerned, consideration should be given to the creation of a new status of associate member, which would give Ukraine and Georgia many of the benefits of membership, including the right for their forces to train with Nato members and to serve alongside Nato states in international operations. What it would not do would be to apply Article 5 of the treaty.

George W Bush and other Nato leaders must show caution in Bucharest. The issue is not about trying to avoid annoying the Russians. Moscow has no right to say who will be, or will not be, a member of Nato. The issue is the preservation of Nato as a real defence pact and not merely as a political alliance. The stakes are high and rightly so.

Bush has strongly backed Georgia and Ukraine's memberships, as has John McCain. By doing so, as Rifkin shows, they prove themselves willing to endanger the national security of not only the U.S. but every other current NATO member - by drawing them needlessly into inernecine wars - simply for personal political capital. Luckily, NATO is set up in such a way that one of the 26 nations can blackball a potential new member - and France has already said it will do so for both these new applicants:

"We are opposed to the entry of Georgia and Ukraine because we think it is not the right response to the balance of power in Europe and between Europe and Russia, and we want to have a dialogue on this subject with Russia," [French Prime Minister Francois ] Fillon said.

"That's what the president of the Republic will say in Bucharest tomorrow," he added.

Britain, just to be sure the message is understood, should follow Rifkin's advice and do so too.

But that France will blackball Georgia and the Ukraine raises another interesting possibility - that Bush and McCain both know this just fine and so are in a comfort zone where they can make tough-talk boasts for domestic consumption that are utterly empty of actual intent or sincerity.

Update Germany has said it will also blackball Georgia and Ukraine's memberships - so that's dead in the water.

Meanwhile, Bush is making statements at clear odds with McCain's recent foreign policy hostility to Russia. "The Cold War is over. Russia is not our enemy. We are looking to a new security relationship with Russia," Bush said in a speech in Bucharest today. But McCain recently called for Russia to be booted out of the G-8 and accused them of blackmailing neighbours with energy supplies and their nuclear arsenal. Can someone in the press ask one of them how they square that circle, please?

Comments

[BJ]

It would be nice if Canada followed that advice as well. Unfortunately, Harper has made it clear that his foreign policy is whatever the Bush administration tells him it is.

OT - I like the new digs, though for some reason the flying pig doesn't show up in Safari.

[--Blue Girl]

I personally think one Cyprus in NATO is one more than we need, you know?

[Goose3five]

Hey C, I dig the new layout and url.

[geoff]

I, similar to OT, would hope that Canada would nix Georgia and Ukraine's membership bid. However we here have about 4% of our population that claims Ukrainian ancestry. It is also located mainly still, I think, between the Western Ontario border and the Eastern side of the Rockies, so it would be an unlikely move by PM Steve Harper as he looks anguishly for his majority gov't to cut his nose off and damage his main belt of support by doing something sensible.

I must be small "c" conservative, I'm having some adaptation problems to the new site. It does look nice, though. Contrary to what OT has found the pig shows up when I'm using Safari but not when I'm using Firefox

[BJ]

geoff,

OT stands for Off-Topic. It ain't my name.

I don't think there would be a big uproar from that 4% regrarding NATO membership for Ukraine. I'm sure they're not fond of seeing the country bullied by the Russians, but I doubt very many are more invested than that. I have some ancestors from there myself, though the ancestoral country I most closely link to is Sweden. The only practical application of that connection on my international views so far is that I cheer for their national hockey team when Canada isn't playing. Harper could easily support the EU-type plan Rifkin mentions above rather than the more agressive Bush plan and keep whatever Ukrainian nationalist support he has happy.

Besides, there's another reason Canadians, and other NATO nations, should be concerned about pissing off the Russians over this. Russia has the ability to put the pinch on the logistical lifeline to NATO troops in Afghanistan. Given our troops are likely there for at least another three years, we, by which I mean our government, should be giving that some thought.