Enlargement of NATO: Offering stability or threat?

13 August 2010, 18:00 PM

Sultan Mohammed Zakaria

http://visualrian.com

NORTH Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the predominant military alliance of the world. After the Second World War, major countries of Western Europe seeking a general line of defence against the so-called Soviet aggression and the expansion of communisms formed the US-led military alliance in 1949 for ensuring their collective security. Starting from only 12 member countries, the Alliance is now enjoying the membership of 28 states. One of the fundamental principles of the North Atlantic Treaty (under which the Alliance formed) is: "an armed attack against one or more of them (member countries) in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all" (Article 5). Critics of the Alliance often argue that with the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War era, the relevance of NATO has far gone; yet its existence and even the continual expansion only serves the United States' hegemonic role in Europe and elsewhere on earth. Although, it is normally hypothesized that NATO's self-designation as an institution for upholding peace and security in Europe and its proven willingness to use force for conflict management and conflict prevention in areas outside NATO member states have played a major role in bringing about the currently existing benign security environment in Europe. However, there was an existence of some dissent voices within Europe too. After I989, with mounting pressure-particularly from France-for an 'Europeanist' (rather than 'Atlanticist') approach to European security, and with deepening disagreements over the Yugoslavia crisis, the transatlantic security partnership looked for a while to be on its last legs. France began to speak of European defence cooperation outside NATO 'in more far-reaching terms than ever before'. Nonetheless, the Alliance did not cede to any criticisms and continues growing. Under the article 10 of the Washington Treaty the alliance remains open to new members which states: "The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State...." Accordingly, in January 1994, NATO committed itself to a gradual process of enlargement, and in 1999, it admitted three new members: Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. At present Montenegro, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are in the pipeline to be members under the Membership Action Plan of NATO approved in 1999 Washington summit. Proponents of NATO's today's relevance and the plan of its expansion argue that the presence of nuclear arsenals; the global proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; the spread of advanced weapon technologies, and terrorism in general are the driving factors for the Alliance's prolonging existence. Moreover, from the perspective of improving regional security and advancing democracy in the former communist states in central and southern Europe, the NATO enlargement process has had the desired effect to many. It is also presented as a strong argument, to those who align NATO and Russian Federation's security concern in the same line, that NATO's motivations for enlargement stem not from a perceived Russian threat but from a desire to reintegrate Europe and to establish an incentive structure for the former communist states of Europe to encourage them to undertake internal reforms that will lead to a more democratic and secure continent. In addition, in countries whose history of conflict with Russia pre-dates World War II, security concerns are well magnified. Although perceptions of a potential Russian threat in the near or mid-term exist only perhaps in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia (which lost their sovereignty altogether and were forcibly annexed to the USSR for over four decades) or in Ukraine, general concern about the long-term prospects of the transition going on in Russia, and nervousness over the unpredictability of the Russian evolution are shared by all the former communist states. Many of this group exert that these fear factors are coupled with the triumph of Communists and ultranationalists forces in the 1995 Russian elections, which brings into question the widespread hopes for a more peaceful post-Cold War world. The Communists' strength is especially worrisome as in their election campaign they proclaimed the "restoration of the union state [i.e., the Soviet Union], our historic fatherland," as their goal. Also, it is often posed that the 'renationalization' of defence and security in post-Cold War Europe must be prevented and that membership of alliances can halt the slide in this direction. Another very implied argument hyped by the United States directed to its Europe allies exists. Regarding the much talked-about ballistic missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, the United States managed to convince NATO that China's intercontinental ballistic missiles may pose a threat to NATO members' territory. These facilities would not only be directed at Russia, according to multiple military sources within NATO countries. On several occasions, the United States has replaced China with North Korea as the potential target of missiles from East European bases. In fact, the bases are related to the fact that NATO views China as a potential threat and an unstable factor that directly influences its security. Besides, China's rising military, political and economic prowess in central Asia and Afghanistan is also in conflict with NATO's frontline strategies in the region. A series of reports published in the United States have claimed that 90 percent of the weapons used by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are from China. Contradicting with this proposition, there are some strongest views and opinions against the NATO's enlargement idea too. They pose question that without a clear and convincing military danger what rationale could there be for the complex and expensive organizations like NATO - which the West had maintained during the Cold War? Russia is the fieriest one of this category who always questions NATO's existence, expansions and its roles. NATO's "encroachment" into Slavic-inhabited areas has concerned Russians as they feel that they have special rights in these countries or perceives that in terms of "civilizational conflict". Russian elites across the political spectrum have been largely united in viewing NATO enlargement as non-beneficial to Russia. On April 3rd 2008, the day after NATO alliance took a step toward embracing two former Soviet republics, Ukraine and Georgia, the then Russian President Vladimir Putin called the further expansion of NATO toward Russia's frontiers a "direct threat'' to its national security. One of the belligerent arguments against NATO's enlargement is that it is meant to serve only the hegemony of the United States who, simultaneously, does not want to loosen its grip over Europe and want to supplement its global military network with such a formidable military alliance to maintain its global military supremacy. As such, NATO gives the United States a means of influencing the security evolution in Europe and enhancing the U.S. ability to project power to other areas important to the U.S. national interests, such as the Middle East. Besides, NATO has intentionally blurred the line dividing members and non-members. The basic, treaty-stipulated distinction between the U.S. commitment to "alliance members" and the U.S. commitment to "close partners" remains. Because of NATO's transformation, the United States now may be seen as having extended an implicit security guarantee to many non-member states. On July 30, 2010 a military exercise combining a total of 26 countries and two international organizations, including the United States, France, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, India, Italy, Germany, Japan, Mongolia and Britain was conducted in the Angkor Sentinel that involved about 1,000 troops. Such kinds of exercises were also conducted in 2007 in Khaan Quest in Mongolia, in Shanti Doot in Bangladesh in 2008 and Garuda Shield in Indonesia in 2009. The critics termed this informal alliance as the "Asian NATO". Some presented a skeptic and more interesting view that through U.S. domination of NATO, the new members will be pushed to accelerate the "free market reforms" and increase the opportunities for Western multinational corporations. One of the supplementing arguments is that the new members of NATO in East Europe will have to increase their military spending to be on the same footing with their Western partners and that the US's arms manufacturers are the biggest supporters of NATO expansion thus will be the principle economic beneficiaries. The president of the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO, Bruce Jackson, is also the director of Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world's best weapons maker. Proponents of this argument scoff that entering NATO means buying U.S. weapons. The potential market for fighter jets alone is $10 billion as evidenced that Hungary will increase its military spending by 35 percent, Poland 20 percent, and the Czech Republic by similar percentages which will only increase the profit margin of US's arms dealers. Furthermore, in recent times, a shift in the strategic direction of the US foreign policy towards Asia irks the regional giant China. The recent decision of carrying out a US-led joint military exercise with South Korea once a month throughout the year sparked a controversy and tensions as China perceives the maneuvering as a threat to its national security and a provocation to its interests. The Taiwan News (a Taiwanese newspaper) reported on 28th July 2010 that Chinese media and its scholars view the event as a process of establishing another "NATO" in Asia to contain China. They present the ongoing high-profile naval exercise with South Korea as evidence and perceived it as an intrusion in the South China Sea affairs. Although China views NATO's expansion as its secondary interests, in the 1998 White Paper, prepared by Chinese Government which outlines the general intention of its own national interests, it states "the enlargement of military blocs and the strengthening of military alliances" have added "factors of instability to international security" Europe's defence and security requirements are still not entirely clear. Not only is the nature of any military threat to Europe and its interests difficult to predict, but the shape and size of Europe are changing fundamentally, as are Europe's relations with the United States, in defence and in other areas. Many cross-cutting issues surround within the debate. The issues being painted on this already messy canvas are difficult and divisive. Should NATO continue to be enlarged? Or should first priority be given to incorporating Russia in a cooperative European security system? Will NATO be contained within Europe or will it go beyond Afghanistan? The existence of the biggest military network (US bases) are destined to face enmity of other regional or sub-regional powers at anytime in near future. It will be an interesting proposition for other NATO members to join and entertain any US adventurisms like Afghanistan in future. Uneasiness of Russia and China with NATO will also be increasing in the coming years. And the allegation of arming Iraqi rebels and Afghan Talibans with Chinese weaponry gives the whole thing a new dimension. Article 5 is yet to face any such bigger test which will determine the fate and future of the alliance for sure. The author is a Research Coordinator with the Development Initiative Trust (DIT).