Conference explores consequences of NATO expansion (06/15/97)

Conference explores consequences of NATO expansion

by Irene Jarosewich

New York - As the date for the NATO meeting in Madrid draws near, the debate about the need for NATO expansion, as well as which countries should be invited, intensifies. Within the context of this debate, Freedom House, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting democracy around the world, and the Ukrainian Institute of America (UIA) co-sponsored a daylong conference, "After NATO Expands: Consequences for Ukraine and the Baltics" at the institute on June 4.

Participating in the panel discussion were Victoria Nuland, State Department fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); Dr. Alexander Motyl, associate director of the Harriman Institute at Columbia University; Riina Kionka, counselor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia; and Ambassador Yuri Shcherbak, Embassy of Ukraine to the United States. Adrian Karatnycky, president of Freedom House, served as moderator. Carlos Pascual, director for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs at the U.S. National Security Council, was the luncheon's keynote speaker.

While introducing the panelists, Mr. Karatnycky stated that he had asked them to respond to several issues, including the potential for a security vacuum after NATO expansion, how NATO expansion affects intra-regional relations in Central and Eastern Europe, the effect of NATO expansion on Russia's behavior, and the vulnerability of Ukraine and the Baltics to Russian hegemony.

As project director for an independent task force on NATO sponsored by the CFR, Ms. Nuland summarized the findings of the task force report "Russia, Its Neighbors and An Enlarging NATO," released this May. The report recommends the expansion of NATO as necessary to increase stability in Europe, states that there is no presumption in NATO expansion that Russia is an enemy, and that Russia can benefit from the expansion process. The commitment from NATO of moving forward encourages countries to find mutual solutions to old problems, said Ms. Nuland, citing recent charters and treaties such as Ukraine's agreements with Russia, Poland and Romania as positive consequences of the NATO expansion process.

Dissenters to this opinion, however, include prominent task force members such as Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisor, who states in the report, "... NATO should not be the vehicle for building a greater Europe. It is a special-purpose organization and should be kept that way. ... The proper foundation for Euro-Atlantic building is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, not NATO."

Ms. Nuland had high praise for Ukraine's recent foreign policy stance, stating that "Ukraine played the last year and a half, diplomatically, very brilliantly" forging a strong, independent stand between a "grumpy, trapped Russia and an empowered, robust NATO."

Whereas Ms. Nuland portrayed the positive aspects of NATO expansion, most notably for Europe and the U.S., Dr. Motyl was more skeptical. According to Dr. Motyl, while NATO expansion may be good for the West, it is not necessarily good for countries such as Ukraine and the Baltics. The issue of NATO expansion, stated Dr. Motyl, uncovers the real issue of security, and regardless of all the documents and charters, a very real delineation "between those that are in and those that are out of NATO" will occur. Not a supporter of NATO expansion, Dr. Motyl explained that the current strategy makes Russia a threat by implication. A security vacuum will be created for those countries that are "out" of NATO and vulnerable to Russian hegemony, not necessarily only in a military sense.

Of the three choices, to expand completely, to not expand at all or to expand partially, the third option, the one chosen, in Dr. Motyl's opinion, was the worst. NATO has chosen to expand to those countries that don't really need NATO and are not a threat to Europe. The pressure of NATO expansion is forcing countries that are neither ready to join NATO, nor strong enough to fend off Russian influence, into the complicated position of again trying to find a delicate balance between two powers. He agreed that "Ukraine's actions have been brilliant in the past year, but they cannot be sustained for a long time."

Regardless of all the words to the contrary, Dr. Motyl asserted that Russia views NATO expansion as the West's intrusion into its sphere of influence and that, as a result, the West should be prepared to accept Russia's "expansion" of its sphere, as recently exemplified by treaties with Chechnya and Belarus, and improved relations with China.

Light laughter rippled through the audience as Ms. Kionka, representing the Estonian Foreign Affairs Ministry, explained the meaning of "NATO" in Estonian: "The official languages of NATO are French and English, and the acronym for NATO in French is OTAN, and [the homophone] 'ootan' in Estonian means 'I wait' - which is, basically, our position on NATO."

The Baltic countries all have unequivocally stated their interest in joining NATO. Protracted periods between admission of new members into NATO "will have the unintended systemic effect of decreasing security," according to Ms. Kionka, "not necessarily physically, but by creating a psychological grey zone."

Several factors influence the level of comfort in this grey zone, including Russia's posture, which now includes very dramatic rhetoric against Baltic admission to NATO, and NATO's attitude towards the Baltics and response to Russia's rhetoric.

As the date of NATO expansion draws nearer, Ms. Kionka noted that relationships between the Baltics, potential NATO members from the CIS such as Ukraine, and Central European countries have actually gotten closer. She cited the May 27 meeting in Tallinn of the presidents of the Baltic states, Ukraine and Poland as a very significant regional meeting.

Strictly coincidentally, the meeting took place simultaneously with the NATO meeting in Paris, at which the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed. Though the Tallinn meeting, which received no media coverage in the West, had been planned months in advance, the Russian press "went nuts," according to Ms. Kionka, reporting the meeting of the five presidents as a "NATO plot and the beginning of a ganging-up on Russia."

Ukraine's Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Shcherbak, stated that Ukraine believes NATO expansion will reinforce a zone of peace and stability in Europe; if both Poland and Hungary are admitted, then Ukraine will have 530 kilometers of border with NATO countries, a situation that Ukraine views positively.

Though Ukraine did not express an interest in immediate admission into NATO, nonetheless, according to the ambassador, Ukraine's strategic plan is to align with and enter major European institutions by 2020. Integration into European structures is viewed not only as a geographic objective, but a cultural and historical one as well.

According to Ambassador Shcherbak, the month of May was extremely important for Ukraine's foreign policy. Numerous significant events took place including President Kuchma's visit to the United States; the signing of the Black Sea Fleet agreements and friendship treaty with Russia; agreements with Romania, Belarus and Poland; a multilateral meeting of five presidents in Tallinn; the opening of the NATO information center in Kyiv - the first of its kind in the world; and the initialing of the NATO-Ukraine Distinctive Partnership Charter.

Ukraine's charter with NATO is fundamentally different from the NATO-Russia Founding Act, according to the ambassador, since "the Ukraine-NATO document is based on close cooperation, unlike the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which is a document between rivals."

During lunch, presenting the official U.S. point of view, Mr. Pascual reiterated the argument of those who support expansion: that it is necessary to guarantee a peaceful, stable and undivided Europe. He insisted that the first tier of countries to be admitted will not be the last.

Mr. Pascual summarized the evolution of U.S.-Ukrainian relations during the past year, beginning with Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott's visit to Ukraine last year, after which a U.S.-Ukraine strategic partnership was announced along with the establishment of the U.S.-Ukraine (Gore-Kuchma) Binational Commission. Both President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore, he said, understand and have repeatedly stated that "Ukraine is a crucial and strategic partner" for the U.S. and "a key partner for Europe."

Ukraine announced that it wanted a special relationship with NATO, according to Mr. Pascual, based on its unique needs, among which was the nuclear issue. As the first country to voluntarily relinquish its nuclear arsenal, Ukraine felt strongly that nuclear weapons should not be placed on the territories of new NATO members.

In describing the activities in the month of May, Mr. Pascual agreed with Ambassador Shcherbak that Ukraine's achievements were impressive. Beginning with the visit of NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana in early May, and the U.S. visit of President Kuchma in mid-month, and "using the time difference between Washington, Brussels and Kyiv to virtually turn drafts and documents around within 24 hours," a NATO-Ukraine charter was signed by the end of the month.

"I want to give credit to Ukraine ... I truly believe it," stated Mr. Pascual - and he asked Ambassador Shcherbak "to please extend a compliment to the professional diplomatic corps in Kyiv - their speed and professionalism were remarkable."

Acknowledging the concerns of those who oppose NATO expansion, Mr. Pascual nonetheless reiterated that all the documents and charters are "not just meaningless paper and diplo-babble," but that NATO expansion "provides a mechanism for evolution" and the documents provide "areas of consultation and cooperation - civil, military, philosophical" that form a basis for integration of new countries into existing European structures. At the same time, stated Mr. Pascual, the U.S. supports the development of new regional relationships, such as the one exemplified by the meeting of the five presidents in Tallinn.

As host of the conference, Walter Baranetsky, president of the UIA board of directors, greeted and thanked the panelists, guests and event co-sponsor, Freedom House, and suggested the possibility that the institute would consider sponsoring this type of event on a semi-annual basis. Close to 100 people attended the conference, including several permanent representatives to the United Nations, envoys from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Estonia, and numerous representatives from Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian and Ukrainian community organizations and press, as well as press representatives from Polish, U.N. and U.S. government media organizations.

After the conference, Ambassador Shcherbak met briefly with members of the Ukrainian community and gave an overview of President Kuchma's visit to Washington, as well as key points of the Black Sea Fleet agreements and the Ukraine-Russia treaty.

| Home Page |