POLITICS: Shaky NATO Announces Minimal Enlargement

By Claudia Ciobanu Reprint | | Print |

Analysis by Claudia Ciobanu

BUCHAREST, Apr 3 2008 (IPS) - Europe appears to have had its way over the U.S. at the opening of the NATO summit in Romanian capital Bucharest.

The United States had been pushing for bringing in three countries – Croatia, Macedonia and Albania – into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) at the alliance&#39s summit this week. Washington also wanted NATO to grant Membership Action Plans (MAPs) to Ukraine and Georgia. But the European members of the alliance pursued their own agendas, overriding Washington – and incidentally meeting Russian demands.

The North Atlantic Council (the decision-making body of NATO) resolved Apr. 3 that only Croatia and Albania will become members of the alliance at this time.

In a forum where decisions are made by unanimity, Macedonia&#39s entry was opposed at least by Greece. The verdict was not unexpected, as the last months of intensified negotiations between Greece and Macedonia had brought no breakthrough. Since 1991 when Macedonia got its independence from Yugoslavia, Athens has been opposing the country&#39s constitutional name of &#39Macedonia&#39, arguing that it reflects Skopje&#39s intentions to take over the northern part of Greece bearing the same name. Macedonia&#39s constitution explicitly denies any territorial ambitions in Greece.

"There is no deadline for Macedonia&#39s entry", said NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at a press conference Apr 3. "The invitation will be made as soon as the name dispute is solved."

Macedonia is considered to be more prepared for membership in terms of domestic reforms (especially in the judicial and military fields) than Albania.

"NATO membership for Macedonia is very important for the stability of the Balkans," Iulian Fota, Director of the National Defence College in Bucharest told IPS. "Hopefully, the government in Skopje will maintain integration to the Euro-Atlantic structures as a goal; otherwise, it could end up in isolation."

Commentators worry about the effects of this rejection on the political stability of the country. The governing coalition in Macedonia, which includes the second largest Albanian party in the country (DPA – Democratic Party of Albanians), is currently going through a crisis.

While much progress has been made in terms of multi-ethnic coexistence in Macedonia, which has a population of 1.3 million Slavo-Macedonians and half a million Albanians, the country remains on shaky ground, especially since neighbouring Albanian-dominated Kosovo declared independence in February.

The reaction of the Macedonian delegation to the decision showed that tensions, if only of a diplomatic nature, are likely to follow. The Macedonians threatened to leave the summit soon after noon Apr. 3, when it became clear they would not be given an invitation. Reporters on the scene were informed that President Branko Crvenkovski and Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski disagreed whether the delegation should leave.

During his press conference, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer further said there is agreement among NATO members to invite Bosnia and Herzegovina to "start a dialogue" in view of membership, as well as to develop a deepened cooperation with Serbia.

More importantly, the Secretary-General announced that Ukraine and Georgia will not be granted Membership Action Plans (MAPs) this week. MAPs mark the starting point for preparations for membership.

"NATO welcomes the aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia, and we agreed that the countries will become members." The two are "on their way to receiving MAPs," Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said, announcing that the foreign ministers of NATO members will meet in December this year to evaluate the alliance&#39s position on the two countries. The Secretary-General refused to disclose which countries opposed granting MAPs to Ukraine and Georgia.

Just like the final decision on Macedonia&#39s entry, the announcement on Ukraine and Georgia could be anticipated before the summit. Upon her arrival in Bucharest Wednesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that "we have reached the conclusion that it is too early to give both countries MAP status."

However, the hopes of the two countries had been boosted at the last minute by the Mar. 31-Apr. 1 visit to Ukraine of U.S. President George W. Bush, when he declared: "In Bucharest this week, I will continue to make America&#39s position clear. We support MAP for Ukraine and Georgia."

But many of the Western European members of the alliance, most prominently Germany and France, were against granting of MAPs at this time. Among the arguments they invoked are popular opposition to the alliance in Ukraine, and instability in Georgia.

Only around 30 percent of Ukrainians would be happy with their country&#39s joining NATO, according to a recent survey. While 77 percent Georgians were found in a survey there to support NATO membership, these numbers do not include the pro-Russian populations of separatist provinces Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Additionally, while Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili claims to lead a democratic pro-western regime, his repression of opposition protests in November 2007 raised worries about his democratic credentials.

Apart from these reasons, countries like Germany opposed the MAPs because they did not want to antagonise Moscow, who had declared itself "threatened" by the expansion up to its borders of a military alliance it is not a member of.

Russia had also opposed the 2004 expansion of the alliance to include the Baltic three (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) among others, but at that time NATO members did not pay much attention to Moscow&#39s concerns.

"Russia is certainly more influential now," Margot Light, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the London School of Economics told IPS. "Neither France nor Germany want to offend it. Energy dependency on Russia makes European countries wary of offending Russia too much."

"In 2004 (Russian President Vladimir) Putin had not yet gained such a powerful position in Russia to threaten NATO effectively," says Wayne Thompson, a U.S.-based specialist on NATO and European defence affiliated with College of Europe in Bruges (Belgium). Also, on top of Ukraine and Georgia being less western-oriented and having less support from the occident, "the stakes are higher now with these two."

"Many scholars have pointed to Ukraine as the country which could prevent Russia from re-establishing its old empire. Naturally, Russia would consider it much more important than any tiny Baltic state. And Georgia is uncomfortably close to Russia&#39s sensitive Muslim areas. Moscow wants reliable allies there," Thompson told IPS.

While Russia&#39s regional influence has been increasing over the last couple of years, the U.S. has lost much of its credibility in Europe, largely because of its leading role in disastrous military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Additionally, as James Goldgeier from the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington explained, while the Europeans are interested in establishing good working relationships with Russian president-elect Dmitry Medvedev, "the American administration in the last year is a lame-duck administration; people are already looking to the future."