“The current rhetoric about NATO expansion —
exemplified by US Foreign Secretary Madeleine Albright’s
recent article in The Economist — is pathetic, and the
discourse about it lacks intellectual quality as well as
creativity. If advocates of this historic step are unable to
find better arguments, the idea itself is probably flawed
or, perhaps, indicative of less noble motives. In addition,
it is clearly divisive within NATO itself,” states TFF
director Jan Oberg.
“We now have a tame debate about NATO’s expansion
where we ought first to clarify humankind’s post-Cold War
needs for conflict-resolution, security, and development and
then NATO’s contribution, if any, to new thinking and
policies.
NATO members failed abysmally as conflict-managers in
ex-Yugoslavia 1991-95 and made UN peacekeeping “mission
impossible”. Then they deployed NATO — much in need of a
raison d’etre and lacking peacekeeping experience — and
equated peace with what NATO/SFOR could deliver.
NATO expansion in terms of tasks, out-of-area operations,
membership and power is not only a conflict-creating
reminiscence of Cold War thinking. It will prevent us from
pursuing much more needed, desirable and possible goals.
If NATO wants security with Russia, why was the decision
made irrevocable without prior consultations and now sold
with “sweeteners”? If NATO believes Russia is not a threat,
why not accept Russia’s concerns as legitimate and state
that the long-term goal is Russia as full member? If NATO
wants an integrated, undivided Europe, why not invest the
energy in more relevant organisations than a greater
North-Atlantic organisation that keeps the Russians
alienated and out?
If NATO sees no threat, why does it confirm former Warsaw
Pact members’ threat perception by extending security
guarantees and membership that, if implemented, will be
destabilising for all?
If NATO leaders want Russians to be partners, why do they
persistently and almost autistically argue that the Russians
are behind and don’t understand the new NATO — and that “as
a nation not bound by NATO decisions, Russia would have no
veto” but just the right to be heard – and ignored?
If NATO, as repeatedly stated, is no longer primarily a
military security organisation, why is there no integrated
program for conversion of surplus military production and
arms exports to civilian purposes? Why has NATO not
devoted the last ten years to develop a new defence and
security concept that links defensive military defence with
civil resistance, socioeconomic defence, economic
cooperation and sustainability, global governance, effective
conflict-management and violence-preventive diplomacy in
general?
If NATO now truly serves democracy, human rights, and
prosperity — “NATO does not need an enemy, it has enduring
purposes,” states Madeleine Albright — why does the new
NATO rely on completely undemocratic, if not illegal,
nuclear policies characterised by 600 decisionmakers
world-wide who have the power to decide the fate of about 6
billion people?
If NATO members have permanent problems finding the funds
for the OSCE and the UN, for post-war reconstruction, for
development aid and humanitarian emergencies and for
assisting reforms in Eastern Europe including Russia, why
are they prepared to spend US $ 22 – 35 bn (2-3 times the
annual budget of all the UN) over the next decade to make
three countries that are neither threatened nor in an
emergency situation full NATO members? And why ever more
members?
If these new members and NATO pay for their membership
and remilitarisation, there will be less funds available for
their much needed socioeconomic development, meaning more
poverty and less stability — in addition to souring
relations with Russia.” Dr. Oberg summarises:
“An genuine debate about such questions and dilemmas
might reveal that there are many and better ways to create
security and peace for the 21st century. However, even in
democracies such a pluralist idea seems unwanted by security
political elites.”
March 11, 1997
