|
NATO and Nuclear WeaponsNATO Foreign Ministers Prepare Road to Summit, 6 March 2008Martin Butcher
NATO's 26 foreign ministers met for an informal session at NATO Headquarters on 6 March 2008. The meeting, following a Defence Ministers informal meeting a month earlier in Vilnius, was part of the preparations for the forthcoming NATO Summit in Bucharest on 2 - 4 April. The meeting focused on enlargement of the Alliance and current NATO missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan but also attempted to address relations with Russia and missile defence. NATO EnlargementForeign ministers were asked to consider NATO enlargement in the Balkans, and future enlargement in Eastern Europe. The accession of Croatia, Albania and Macedonia to NATO is considered relatively uncontroversial within the Alliance. Greece continues to object the use of the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia by the Macedonians, claiming that it represents a territorial claim on the Greek province of the same name. The dispute between Greece and Macedonia will be resolved as the US is putting strong private and public pressure on the two, with the UN mediating. These three countries are likely to be invited to join NATO this year, with accession taking place by 2010. Alongside the enlargement deal, ministers will offer a closer cooperative relationship to Bosnia and Montenegro. The same deal had been on offer to Serbia, which was brought into the Partnership for Peace programme at the last Summit in Riga. However, Serbia is unlikely to be granted an enhanced relationship with NATO as long as it is refusing to cooperate with the Alliance in the breakaway province of Kosovo, which recently issued a unilateral declaration of independence having been administered by the UN and NATO since the 1999 war. The more controversial part of the enlargement debate concerns Georgia and the Ukraine. The United States had previously pushed for these countries to be invited to join NATO this year, enthusiastically supporting them in the wake of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution and the Georgian Rose revolutions. However, there is no possibility that either country will now be invited to join NATO in the near future. Both have requested Membership Action Plans (MAPs) as a first step towards possible future accession to the Alliance. Even that is controversial. Many countries, notably Germany and France, remain nervous about taking a step which will antagonize Russia at a time when relations with Moscow are deteriorating. The decline in support in the Ukraine for NATO membership, currently around 20% in opinion polls, and the election last year of an anti-NATO government under Prime Minister Yanukovich have given even the US pause for thought. Meanwhile, the ongoing territorial disputes between Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia (both supported in the attempts to assert independence from Georgia by Russia) means that no invitation will be made to join NATO, and a MAP is unlikely.[1] The debate between ministers was coloured by the need to keep good relations with Russia. EU-Russia relations have also come into play, to US irritation. Suggesting that NATO should move slowly and carefully on giving MAPs to the two candidates, Luxemburg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said that "In Russia we have a new president and I think the European Union wants to put its ties with Russia on another footing. We have to take the interests of others, not only the members of NATO, into account." AfghanistanForeign Ministers discussed a plan for future NATO engagement in Afghanistan. All member states agree that success in Afghanistan is essential for the future credibility of the Alliance. They also agree that military, political and economic aspects of the stabilization of Afghanistan must be in place if that success is to be achieved. Canada, which has forces fighting the Taliban in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, has been particularly critical of those NATO nations which have maintained so-called 'caveats' on the use of their forces - largely aimed at preventing them being part of any active combat missions. However, in the wake of the 6 March meeting, Canadian representatives seemed relatively optimistic about prospects for the future of the NATO operation. It is thought that the plan contains four points which manages the demands by some allies to focus on fighting the Taliban and the desire by others to do more on the reconstruction and nation-building side. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told reporters that "A strategy is necessary," and would show "a common determination of the allies to stay engaged in Afghanistan for the long term" with "clear prospects for a gradual handover to the Afghan authorities at all levels" and "a politically-shared strategy for Afghanistan".[2] KosovoKosovo is considerably less controversial. NATO is committed to the KFOR operation, and took the major decision to remain involved in the province if the Kosovans declared independence when Foreign Ministers met in December 2007. NATO briefers said that Ministers will reaffirmed the fact that KFOR will continue to play its role, protecting majority and minority alike throughout Kosovo, according to its UN mandate. At his press conference, Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer underlined that "although the situation in Kosovo is delicate," there is cause for optimism. He added that ".. KFOR will continue to play its role, protecting the majority and minority in Kosovo in keeping with its UN mandate." Scheffer underlined that that NATO would remain dedicated to cooperation with its partners in the western Balkans, "because all our allies are convinced that Euro-Atlantic integration is the key to durable peace and stability in the Balkans."[3] Missile DefenceDelicate discussions on the exact way in which NATO might recognize ongoing negotiations between the United States, the Czech Republic and Poland on stationing elements of ballistic missile defences in Europe continue. NATO sources have told the author that while the Poles and Czechs have still to agree bilateral deals with the US, it is likely that NATO nations will continue to remain reticent on the programme. This tendency is reinforced by the fact that Congress has denied funding for the BMD sites in the current fiscal year, and will delay deciding on the 2009 budget until after the Presidential election in November. There are simply too many uncertainties for member states to risk taking a position on so difficult an issue, especially since it has such ramifications for relations with Russia. ConclusionA comprehensive plan for the future of Afghanistan and a new wave of enlargement will give a positive spin to the Heads of State and Government meeting. Arguments over missile defence and relations with Russia may still tarnish that positive image. Further Information NATO Official Page on Foreign Ministers Meeting US State Department Briefing by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
Endnotes [1] For more information
see Taras Kuzio, U.S. backs NATO enlargement, UPI, 10 April 2007, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ig0cFnrQWkDQ5YDvw5v_ [2] French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, Press Conference, NATO HQ, 6 March 2008. [3] De Hoop Scheffer, op cit. © 2008 The Acronym Institute. |