Reforming without a MAP - No Go from NATO
despite the efforts of the US, Canada, and the newest EU members
As of today, efforts to stop Ukraine and Georgia from getting MAPs of how to eventually get into NATO should succeed: thanks to the craven capitulation of the German and French governments to Russia (IIU has already linked a great article by Taras Kuzio running down the list of how similar the situations of Ukraine and Georgia are to those of other nations that joined NATO, even Germany itself: showing clearly that the motivation for refusal is as a sop to Moscow).
In this environment, I'd like to praise Bush for launching the lead balloon IIU just blogged about. He could have downplayed Ukraine and Georgia's requests. He wouldn't even have needed to come out against, merely gone along with the usual practice at NATO meetings of not airing clashing views. In doing so he would have been more friendly with Russia, and thereby also with France: something that could produce real political dividends at a time when Russia has been suggesting it might open nearby bases to, and France may increase its participation in NATO in Afganistan. On the basis of a cost-benefit analysis, Bush could easily have waffled.
Instead he first visited Ukraine to express his support, and then at the summit he went off script to say:
Welcoming [Ukraine and Georgia] into the Membership Action Plan would send a signal to their citizens that if they continue on the path to democracy and reform they will be welcomed into the institutions of Europe.
It would send a signal throughout the region that these two nations are, and will remain, sovereign and independent states.
A lame-duck President doesn't have a lot of political muscle (or as much temptation to make compromises out of political expediency, to be fair). But Bush pushed as hard as he could to support Ukraine and Georgia, because doing so was right. Whatever else he's done, that deserves commendation.
The newest EU members and Canada are also to be praised. I particularly like the quotes by the Estonian and Latvian presidents (in one of the articles linked by IIU) that the MAP would be of great benefit because "it forces nations to reform even when they don't want to do it," and "no action plan, no action.
Both statements are sadly approriate in Ukraine's currently political climate. Additional external pressure for reform would have been welcome.
Dan McMinn
A big new wrinkle in the NATO debate. In the comments IIU posted this link (thanks!). In it the NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer says outright that
- Ukraine and Georgia will be members if they want to,
- that the ministers will revisit the issue in December
- that they will even consider immediate granting of NATO status (which would of course be subject to approval from the Ukrainian and Georgians governments as well, and therefore, at least in Ukraine's case, subject to a national referendum), something NATO has not done up until this point.
This puts things in a new light. Considering that the MAP process has hitherto required 2-10 years, if the NATO ministers are even considering foregoing that period of time, this may not even be setback for Ukraine.
If true, that's very encouraging. It may even mean that the German government was playing a sneakier political game than I gave it credit for: meeting whatever demands Putin made when Merkel visited, while avoiding the implications.
Of course the "if true" is a very important part of that last section. Definitely better news than yesterday, though.
15 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (15)
Germany against Kyiv’s Westward push
Apr 03 2008, 00:58
Germany’s actions show it to be no friend of emerging democracies Ukraine and Georgia.
During the Cold War, NATO was often described as an international organization whose purpose was to keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out. NATO’s Bucharest summit this week will show that only the first of these – keeping the Americans in – still holds 18 years after the Berlin Wall crumbled.
The Germans are no longer down and the Russians are no longer out. In fact it is because the Germans are no longer down that the Russians are back in.
The German nationalism that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher chillingly predicted during the December 1989 European Community summit would return following Germany’s unification is back. Germany’s new assertiveness was openly evident for everybody to see during the mass outpouring of German nationalism at the 2006 World Cup.
Optimism that German Chancellor Angela Merkel would break from her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder’s Russophile stance has been misplaced. Merkel’s continuation of Schroeder’s policies suggests that Germany’s Russophilism has crossparty consensus that eerily recalls fears of a new RussoGerman alliance that first emerged in the 1922 Rapallo Treaty.
In December 2005, Schroeder accepted a proposal to head a Russian gas project to build a pipeline from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea. The pipeline bypasses the new Baltic and Eastern European democracies while undermining the EU’s energy security and December 2003 Security Strategy.
In 2003, Germany rallied “Old Europe” against the Iraqi invasion, pushing transAtlantic relations to their lowest level since World War II. Five years later, it is Germany that is again mobilizing opposition in Old Europe to giving invitations to Ukraine and Georgia into NATO Membership Action Plans (MAP).
These transAtlantic disputes are not an aberration but signify a break in the postWorld War II grand bargain. The outcome will be to reduce NATO’s effectiveness by transforming it into a twotier organization.
Although Germany is a member of NATO’s military arm, it has contributed less to NATO military action than France, which left NATO’s military arm in 1966. As President Bush said in Kyiv, Ukraine has participated in every NATO and recent USled military exercise.
Germany is also in the vanguard lobbying against the EU offering Ukraine any membership prospects. Of the three regions still seeking EU membership (western Balkans, Turkey, Ukraine), only Ukraine has no membership prospects. Yet of these five countries, only two are democracies, Croatia and Ukraine.
NATO's unwillingess to invite Ukraine into a MAP is the first time in its 60year history that it has rebuffed a democracy.
While Germany is no longer down, Russia is no longer out. US President George W. Bush and NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer have stated their objection to any nonNATO member possessing a veto over NATO policy.
This is not the case for Germany and its Old Europe allies who have undermined the very foundations of NATO policy towards Russia since the formation of the NATORussia Council (NRC) in 2002. The NRC gave Russia a “voice” but not a “veto” over NATO policy.
Germany has undermined this core principle by de facto giving Russia a veto over inviting Ukraine and Georgia into the MAP process. Following Merkel’s March 8 visit to Moscow, Germany has broken diplomatic protocol and silence by using arguments such as “Russia has no veto, but Russia’s views must be taken into account.” Heinrich Kreft, a leading member of Merkel’s foreign policy team in her Christian Democratic Party warned, “NATO for Ukraine would be a public humiliation for Russia that would last generations.”
No other NATO member, other than Germany, has gone out on a limb to so openly support Russian opposition to NATO MAPs for Ukraine and Georgia. Other Old European members may have similar reservations, but they have maintained diplomatic silence.
Another argument commonly used by Germany and Old Europe is that Russia’s new president should be given a chance to show his alleged “reform credentials” and his desire to improve relations between the West and Russia. Such Western wishful thinking of Russia has a long pedigree stretching back over many decades.
Since Soviet leader Yuriy Andropov came to power in 1982, Western sentiment has shifted from rosy optimism at the beginning of Soviet and Russian leaders’ careers to pessimism after their many years in power. Old Europe should take note: every Soviet reformer was bald while Russian leaders Vladimir Putin and Dmitriy Medvedev have full flocks of hair. That should cause us to doubt their alleged “reform credentials.”
NATO cannot escape the diplomatic cul de sac Germany has taken it into. As a Baltic diplomat said, the argument that “Ukraine and Georgia won’t join NATO because of Russia, but Vladimir Putin doesn’t have a veto over NATO?” is diplomatic gibberish.
Merkel argued against extending a MAP to Georgia because she claimed it would introduce a potential conflict into NATO with Russia over two frozen conflicts. This argument ignores Germany’s own history as Western Germany (BRD) was brought into NATO when Eastern Germany (DDR) was a frozen conflict under Soviet occupation.
Using the frozen conflict arguments undermines NATO’s longstanding objection to any nonNATO member country possessing a veto over its policies and enlargement. Merkel’s new position retreats from German Foreign Ministry statements made only last year that ruled out Russia using the frozen conflicts as a veto.
Merkel manipulates opinion polls to suit Germany’s arguments. Low support in Europe for Turkey’s EU membership is used as an argument by Germany to only offer Turkey an Enhanced Agreement. Meanwhile, above 50 percent support in Europe for Ukraine’s EU membership is not drawn on by Germany to offer Ukraine any membership prospects. All Old Europe members have higher than 50 percent support for Ukraine’s EU membership. The exception is Germany.
Ukraine’s support for NATO membership has fluctuated between a third and a quarter. All budding NATO members — bar Poland and Romania — had similar levels of support for NATO membership prior to government campaigns to increase public awareness.
In not supporting Ukraine’s membership in either NATO or the EU, German nationalism has shown itself to be disinterested in the promotion of democracy beyond its immediate neighbors. It is not coincidental that Germany has led the way in reviving the EU’s relations with Uzbekistan after their deterioration three years ago following the Andijon massacre.
In a perceptive new book, Journal of Democracy coeditor Larry Diamond wrote that, “The most urgent task of the next decade is to shore up democracy in these countries” of the former USSR. Germany’s actions up to Bucharest, and in Brussels, show it to be no friend of emerging democracies Ukraine and Georgia.
Dr. Taras Kuzio is a research associate at the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at The George Washington University and a former head of the NATO Information and Documentation Office in Kyiv.
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/oped/28758/
EU, at this time, will offer aid to Ukraine, a deeper partnership agreement but not EU membership.
"Ukraine, denied NATO candidate status on Thursday, will also have to put its EU aspirations on hold, the European Commission said. While the European Union's policy includes Ukraine in its "neighbourhood policy", that doesn't necessarily means eventual membership, said EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner. "For the future, nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in, the door is neither open nor closed," she said."
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1207228620.64
http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200804/5a8c035c-d9a6-4f07-8eb6-9c7c13e93235.htm
http://www.welcomeurope.com/default.asp?id=1300&idnews=4587
http://news.1plus1.ua/ukrayina/ukrayinu-ne-chekayut-v-yes.html
"Ukraine's Foreign Ministry on Thursday harshly criticised the European Union's attitude towards its immediate neighbours, only hours after Brussels declared things generally were going well. "One-sided" and "unacceptable" were among the terms used in an Ukrainian government statement to describe an EU declaration on future relations with neighbour states - the so-called European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) - which excluded the possibility of those countries becoming EU members, instead offering them special partner status. The status would leave many tax and practically all personal movement barriers in place between Ukraine and the EU, but allowed a moderate liberalisation of trade of some goods and services. "Ukraine calls on the EU member states to develop a new political formula of Ukraine-EU relations, which would take into account Ukraine's desire for European integration, and its strategic role in an united Europe," the Foreign Ministry statement said. ... The official Ukrainian response accused Brussels of abandoning its own standards, by refusing even to consider Ukrainian membership in the organization, so as to protect EU markets. The Ukrainian remarks also criticised Brussels for allegedly taking credit for a tightening of EU-Ukrainian economic and political relations in recent months, when in fact it was a concerted Ukrainian government effort to link itself to Europe that caused the changes. The absence of language regarding Ukraine's eventual membership in Thursday's EU report, despite its presence in previous EU communiques, was sharply attacked by the Ukrainian declaration. "ENP (special partner status) should not be held up a replacement or an alternative for membership (for Ukraine), as was clearly stated in previous communiques," the Ukrainian statement read in part. "This, unfortunately, is not the case with the (Ferrero-Waldner's Thursday) communique." "The part of the communique setting out the terms of the future relationship between Ukraine and the EU as 'partnership' is unacceptable," the statement concluded."
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/196542,ukraine-sharply-criticises-eu-neighbourhood-policy.html
Even more strikingly, he said that NATO foreign ministers would return to the issue of a MAP in December, and would be authorized to decide whether or not to offer MAPs on the spot - the first time that that power has been delegated by heads of state.
'It's subtle: without the delay, the decision (not to offer a MAP) could have been seen as a Russian victory,' Gomart said.
'NATO is getting a bit tougher, and saying that we're waiting a couple of months, but we're going to go ahead anyway,' Atis Lejins, head of the Latvian Foreign Policy Institute and an expert on Russian-Western relations, said.
Analysts say that the decision puts the ball in Russia's court, giving it the choice of criticizing the announcement on eventual membership or of welcoming the postponement of the MAP.
They also say that it buys NATO leaders time to try and convince Russia - and especially its president-elect, Dmitry Medvedev - that any enlargement into the former USSR is not aimed at Moscow.
And they further point out that a negative reaction from Russia could make it easier for French and German leaders to justify offering Georgia and Ukraine a MAP in December.
'There will probably be some changes in style under Medvedev when dealing with the West, but Russia will continue to be assertive ... It thinks that as long as NATO is weakening, it's a good way for Russia to regain what it lost in the last decade,' Gomart said.
That being the case, Thursday's announcement on Ukraine and Georgia looks more like the beginning of a diplomatic debate than the end of one.
And with just eight months to go before NATO foreign ministers convene in December, the pressure is now on for both NATO and Russia to forge a new relationship together - before they form one apart."
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1398220.php
/ANALYSIS_NATO_and_Russia_-_in_out_or_friendly
It was nominally from Germany, and all the people wore leather and were oh-so-fashionably European.
At the end of the "show," the host, with a German accent would say "now iss zee time on Shprockets ven vee danse"
And everyone would gyrate around in leather suits to some really "cool" Euro-German "music."
Now is zee time on Shprockets ven vee danse - to zee tune of rasha.
April 3, Bucharest
...NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia..."
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=17521
Whoa there! Ok, so granted the German government has been at the forefront of making things difficult for Ukraine in order to appease Russia in this matter, it's still not cause for such generalizations about the whole country. Plus I don't allow hate speech on the site, so even if you're angry, I'd ask you to please have some more restraint. Since I don't tolerate people badmouthing Ukraine, I can't very well allow badmouthing of Germany either.
So saying, I do agree that it is highly disappointing. Thank you IIU for the story about the calculation over the end of the year. If Europe might change its mind as early as December (only 9 months away) then this isn't nearly as much of a setback as I'd thought.
Provided, of course, that the Ukrainian government gets at least a little of its act together to help overcome the (reasonably well-founded) perception in Europe that Ukraine isn't committed enough to a democratic path yet.
elmer: Mmmm... gently, gently sir.
http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/7689.html
http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/7688.html
I am of the opinion it should have been done along time ago though if anyone has add. info. about these individuals would be welcome and appreciated. In fact I would go so far as to recommend the changing of the guard, at more points around the world. Ambassadors can wield tremendous power and influence but only if they actively engage in promoting their country's reputation and image abroad. Far too often they seem to remain in their ivory towers (though yes, there are funding and budgetary issues.) Not clear why the personnel changes and it could be because the individuals were so exceptional that they have been promoted upstairs --- will post add. info. about this if I see it but right now my take on this is they have not been pleasing.
video from tv program "I Think So"
http://news.1plus1.ua/bin/video.php?media_id=53613§ion_id=2&article_id=21988#media_id
"The first text wasn't that bad. When [Polish Foreign Minister] Radek Sikorsky and I looked at it, we said it is not the dream text, but we could live with it," Schwarzenberg said. "But then the Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, came and said it isn't acceptable for him and the discussion started."
Schwarzenberg said "the Poles led a group, mainly the Baltic States, out of the room" for "a caucus." Once the full meeting reconvened, "this final text came out.""
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2008/04/9ce103df-523d-4e16-90fb-677875931be7.html
Many thanks to the Polish President, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania :))) And Bush and Ukraine and everyone else involved but not mentioned. But I remember reading how when the statement was made in Bucharest that Georgia and Ukraine would not be offered MAP at this summit, some female members of the Georgian press corps burst into tears. I remember the incident told about when the statement was made that the new PM was Yanukovych, a similar incident occurred. Here's to a brighter future.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_h_hLztz7W0s/R_Sj3kS2ClI/AAAAAAAABHY/buqUs8gc7iM/s1600-h/Ucrania_Georgia_NATO.jpg
ROFL :))))
Oui patron, Ja chef ROFL
Thank you for the funny :)))) Many thanks. Makes me wanna learn portuguese. Brillaint :)