NATO EXPANSION
North
Atlantic Trade Organization (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance
based on the North Atlantic Treaty signed in 1949. The members of NATO have a
mutual response of defense to attack by an external party. They maintain that
an attack on any one member is an attack on the whole group of nations. at the
beginning The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously stated the
organization's goal was, "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and
the Germans down" (Reynolds, 1994,pp. 13).
Mearsheimers
study on offensive realism as cited in (Sundevall, 2011, pp. 2) assumes that
“…states are rational power maximizes…always trying to gain more power at the expense
of others. Sundevall goes ahead to state that, “NATO’s …expansion (according to
Mearsheimers) seems to be the opposite of rational state behavior” and that
“states do not …expand alliances when they are threatened” (2011, pp. 2)
The
NATO expansion eastwards has led Russia to reassess strategic
imperatives in their western boarders because of the mutual distrust resulting
from the new alliance formed between the former enemies during the cold war.
The countries view the security of one member country as a threat to the
others. The expansion has led to a politico-military response between the
former states which formed the Soviet Union. The response main aims are defense and
security cooperation between the states (Black, 2000).
The
main problem is the perception of NATO by Russia
and Belarus
as a potential enemy thus the need for the republics defenses to protect
themselves from western approaches. The presidents of Belarus have even mooted a planned desire to
turn the alliance with Russia
into a powerful deterrent to NATO activities. Russia
and Belarus
are closely monitoring the surety issues that will result form the proposed
NATO expansion. The two countries are planning to have a joint security
organization to tackle the new security challenges that will be posed by the
eastern NATO expansion. They also plan to determine their sphere of influence
while at the same time strengthening this sphere (Black, 2000)
Black
(2000) further states that although Russia has tried to come to terms with the
eastern expansion of NATO, her partner Belarus has adopted a more rigid stand
of no expansion, leaving it in a situation of waning relationship with the
west. Belarus has often accused NATO and the United States of harboring plans
to invade it. NATO has thought of improving its relationship with Russia but not with Belarus because of their poor human
rights record and the allegations that they sell weapons to states that support
terrorism. Russia has also been accused by the other NATO members of harboring
imperial ambitions (Barany, 2003).
The
opposition to NATO expansion arises fro issues of security thus the military
cooperation between the two states which will eventually lead to a new
geopolitical map of Eastern Europe. Russia views Belarus
as the necessary entry point to the eastern block of Europe thus an important
partner in the military strategies of Russia. In addition to that, it
provides direct access to central Europe necessary to exert Russia’s
influence in the region which mainly relies on NATO for its security. Thus Belarus is a very strategic partner in the
security plans of Russia
(Barany, 2003)
According
to Duignan (2000), Russia’s has reached agreements with Belarus to the use of
their military infrastructure after Russia lost significant military bases in
the Baltic States. The two countries have held training programs together aimed
at countering any attacks by NATO on the two states. (Black 2000) outlines that
the two countries even have a weapon procurement program underway all aimed at
the Belarus-Russia military doctrine. All this cooperation’s are done in
secrecy and with little government transparency. Because of the high levels of
new security threats, the manipulation of information is in itself a strategy
that the two nations have used to their advantage.
Russia’s
main objection to the NATO expansion is the disappearance of the defensive wall
provided by the USSR
following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This led to the exposure of Russia
to the western powers which include the U.S.
and other strong NATO members from Europe. The
NATO expansion led to Russia’s
rush to build strong security alliances. That’s where Belarus fitted
in because the too needed a close military cooperation to boost their national
security. Russia
viewed the expanding NATO as infringing on their western security space, an
area where they reigned supreme before. Belarus
importance to the Russia’s
cause is her geopolitical orientation. It plays an important role in the
establishment of east-West cooperation. Thus the NATO expansion has turned the
nation into an important military and political center (Duignan, 2000).
Russia
has also been accused of planning nuclear countermeasures in reaction to
countries that intend to join the NATO. They have threatened to deploy nuclear
weapons in Belarus
should any central European state join NATO. Belarusian president in a speech
on the eve of victory day in 1996 said that they could not sit back and watch
as NATO encroaches upon their boarders. The president further accused NATO o
double standards by demonizing the Russia-Belarus cooperation while singing
praises at the NATO expansion (Duignan, 2000).
There
were also concerns why NATO supported military cooperation with former Warsaw
Pact states while the eastern states were against it. In 1997 the leaders of
Russia and Belarus issued a statement on their opposition to NATO expansion;
which they cited as the key reason why they were pooling resources for military
action and also forging links in foreign relations (Bebler, 1999).
Russia
further maintained that military structures and cooperation were inevitable due
to the planned North East Corps base in Szczecin,
a move which was viewed as advancement with weapons to the boarders of Russia. Further
in 1998 after the entry of Czech Republic, Poland
and Hungary
into NATO, the cooperation was strengthened specifically on the fronts of
efforts to establish military installations. NATO expansion according to
critics failed to convincingly give the reasons why it considered the expansion
plans. After the collapse of communism in central and Eastern
Europe, NATO had lost a chunk of its collective purpose of defense
(Bebler, 1999).
Germany
and U.S have stood out as the two countries pushing hardest for the NATO
expansion. The motivations of the two counties for the enlargement were
different. German’s quest for the admission of Czech
Republic, Poland
and Hungary in her
commitments to further her influence in central Europe.
Germany also viewed the
expansion as an opportunity to end the long running German-Polish conflicts and
also to advance German’s economic interests in Central
Europe. The enlargement was also viewed as part of the
democratization process of the three countries and to also enhance German’s
security in the Central and Eastern Europe
(Kaplan, 1999).
The
U.S. main objective for the
support of NATO expansion was so that the United
States could be anchored in Europe
by securing the transatlantic dimension. The United States saw the addition of
the three members to the NATO fold as an increased market for their weapons
trade which had significantly gone down in the periods after the collapse of
communism (Bebler, 1999).
The
solution to the problem faced by NATO expansion would be to accord respect for Russia’s
interests and also the need for collective European security system. An all
inclusive policy for security had been attempted before. The policy aimed at
economic modernization and integration with Western Europe to contain the
problem of insecurity in Russia
dominated Western Europe. The new alliance
would be striving for defense. The policy of not building new zones of regional
stability was reinforced by the existence of armament treaties between the
enlarged states. The above approach would lead to the elimination of the fears
that Russia
have long held about NATO expansion (Kaplan , 1999).
REFERENCES
Barany, Z. D. (2003).The future of NATO expansion: four case studies. Cambridge
University Press.
Black,
L. (2000) Russia Faces NATO Expansion: Bearing Gifts or
Bearing Arms? Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers
Bebler, A.A. (1999). The Challenge of NATO Enlargement. Westport, Conn.:Praeger
Duignan, P (2000).NATO; its Past, Present and the Future.
Hoover Institution press publication
Kaplan, L.S. (1999). The Long Entanglement: NATO’s First Fifty
Years. Westport,
Conn.:
Praeger
Sundevall, O (2011). Masters thesis: Testing Offensive Realism on NATO expansion in Europe.
Uppsala University, spring.
Reynolds
D. (1994). The origins of the Cold War in Europe; International perspectives, Yale
University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment