NATO Thaws Towards Russia, Keeps Georgia Waiting

By Cernig

NATO members agreed Tuesday to begin thawing relations with Russia and to pursue constructive non-membership of NATO for Georgia, in a move which will stymie the plans of predominantly American hawks to freeze out Russia and fast-track plans for a confrontational series of - to borrow a Bob Kagan phrase - "procupine" states in eastern Europe.

going into her last NATO meeting, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dodged confrontation with allies by dropping previous U.S. resistance to restarting talks with Russia, and reached a compromise in a squabble with Germany over how to manage the entry ambitions of Ukraine and Georgia.

The outcome leaves any real decisions on closer alliance ties with Russia, Georgia and Ukraine to the incoming President-elect Barack Obama.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the 26 NATO states had asked him to see what political contacts would be possible with Moscow and said the suspended ambassador-level NATO-Russia Council would meet again on an informal basis.

"Allies agreed on what I would qualify as a conditional and graduated reengagement with Russia," he told a news conference.

He stressed though that this did not mean NATO had changed its view that Russia had used "disproportionate" force in invading Georgia in August, or that it was acceptable for Russia to threaten to station missiles near NATO borders.

... The NATO decision came hours after the 27-member European Union resumed talks on a broad-ranging partnership pact with Moscow, reflecting European acceptance that any attempt to isolate a key energy partner could damage European interests.

The EU agreed last month that Russia had complied sufficiently with the terms of a Georgia ceasefire to permit this, while keeping the relationship under review.

... Rice backed a compromise formula of seeking to further Ukrainian and Georgian entry ambitions through bilateral forums NATO has established with each country, which could render formal entry plans unnecessary.

This was resisted by Germany and its Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said MAPs would remain a requirement for NATO enlargement. "We have decided today that there will be no shortcut," he said.

NATO had a choice - play catch-up with the EU or become irrelevant. The Bush administration was not happ about that, I guarantee. Nor will they be happy about the fact that, since every existing member has a veto on new members "no shortcuts" is how Georgia's membership application will remain.

Yet again, we see the Bush administration listening to homegrown neocon and Old Cold Warrior hawks who cannot adjust to the realities of a multi-polar world and see NATO increasingly as America's own pet UN, while Europeans make a clear distinction between the opportunities of braod power and NATO's limitation as a purely military alliance.

Back in April, former British Conservative Party Defense Secretary, Malcolm Rifkin, had the most lucid and sensible prescription of NATO's Eatern European problems and their solutions, one that the recent Caucusus conflict in no way changed.

"...Ukraine and Georgia deserve our support and deserve more than they are currently getting. That is not the same, however, as saying that they should be made full members of 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.

...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."

Quite simply, if you want to talk economics, talk to the EU. NATO is not an economics and trade club. Continuing to talk about NATO will always mean continuing to hope for Article 5 protection, even if the Bush administration and those paid to shill for Georgia neglect to say so outright. That is a can of worms that should be thought about long and hard before opening, as all the major European members of the Alliance realie. Hopefully, Obama will realise it too.