Idealists aim for harmony through NATO reform

Date: 19/09/1996

W HEN they speak about extending NATO eastwards, American diplomats have taken to making romantic comparisons between the end of the Cold War and the end of the Second World War.

“Then we had won the war but not won the peace,” said US Secretary of State Warren Christopher recently. “Now, we have prevailed in the Cold War, but we have not fully made the adjustment and adaptation to the peace.”

His implication was that all that was about to change.

French diplomats cannot let an interlocutor use the word 'NATO' without interjecting: “you mean the reformed NATO”.

Reforming NATO may be easier than changing the 20th century security picture, but neither is in the bag yet. As the calendar runs on, concrete political snags are beginning to appear in the path of projects born of idealism.

France and Spain are setting conditions for increased involvement in the alliance which would require concessions from the US and the UK. Many American legislators and citizens still need to be convinced that expanding NATO is in their interest. A possible change of government in the UK could stall plans for major overhauls, and Russian fears about NATO expansion eastward have not yet been overcome.

But things change. Even the Swiss government, famous for its long tradition of unrelenting neutrality, is drafting its application to join the Partnership for Peace (PFP), NATO's outreach to Central and Eastern nations and former Soviet republics, although it says it will not join the alliance.

And progress is being made.

Tomorrow (20 September), NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana will meet Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeni Primakov (who has been defining the Russian interests the allies must consider) in Vienna to exchange ideas on how Moscow and the transatlantic alliance can cooperate. Russian Defence Minister General Igor Rodionov is likely to attend the informal meeting of NATO defence chiefs in Bergen, Norway, next week (25-26 September).

In December, NATO foreign ministers will meet in Brussels to agree principles for the new, expanded structure, setting the scene for a summit next year that many hope will mark the birth of the new alliance, complete with a European pillar and a pan-European security framework.

If it goes ahead as planned, Central and Eastern European candidate nations will be invited to that summit, where Christopher envisions the start of membership negotiations with at least three of them.

But British officials are already expressing reservations about summit plans which could coincide with the forthcoming UK general election, which must take place by next May. John Major's government will not want to have to make NATO promises during the campaign season, and a new government would not be ready to commit itself.

Come what may, western capitals have more or less promised Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic that they will be able to start membership negotiations next year. Later, according to Christopher, a “new phase of intensified dialogue” will begin with other candidates.

New members would not actually join NATO until 1999, but Christopher has been urging the EU to move ahead swiftly with its own enlargement in the meantime in order to cement democracy in the region.

Lest Europeans see that as a hint that America would like to bow out of its obligations on this side of the Atlantic, Christopher has said that the US' promise in 1946 to remain engaged on European soil remains “the basis for Washington's approach to Europe today”.

But Russia is still the number one issue, and the biggest concern. Its opposition to NATO taking in former Soviet republics remains firm, although it is warming to the idea of developing a privileged relationship for Moscow with the western alliance.

Perhaps German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, seen as one of Boris Yeltsin's nearest and dearest, was simply trying to cheer up the ailing president during their most recent meeting but, whatever his motives, Tass reported the Chancellor as saying NATO would take no decision this year on enlargement.

Kohl said that Major, French President Jacques Chirac and US President Bill Clinton had all agreed with him that they would not surprise Moscow with a 'take it or leave it' decision on new NATO members. Chirac has even suggested that Russia's leader attend next year's summit of NATO and East European nations.

By then, says Christopher, the alliance should have ready a formal charter to govern NATO-Russia relations, something which some Russians have been requesting for months. Russia, he said earlier this month, should be “our full partner in building a new Europe free of tyranny, division and war”.

But while he is open to discussions with his western counterparts, Primakov has yet to give anything away.

“He is continuing very quietly in his job, not making any scenes, but he is sticking to the traditional position,” said one Russian observer.

In their early conversations about a charter for Russia, NATO allies have discussed how it could allay Moscow's concerns over the stationing of alliance nuclear weapons and the deployment of troops. There could also be rules about cooperation on peacekeeping. Another idea is to give Moscow a hot line to NATO headquarters.

Alliance ambassadors are to continue discussing the possible contents of such a charter in the coming weeks.

They must also resolve questions about how to bring France and Spain - both partial NATO members - fully into the alliance.

Both have taken strides towards answering those questions this month. French Premier Alain Juppé has said that now that Europe and the US appear to have found a more equitable formula for power-sharing, it would only take signs that the new equation was being applied to allow France to take the plunge.

“I have high hopes that it will soon be achieved in practice, which would open the way for France to participate fully and completely in the structures of a renewed alliance,” he told a meeting of defence experts recently.

Moves to restructure NATO's military chains of command and intensify relations with eastern neighbours and with Russia are already drawing Paris in.

But one large hitch remains: the role of the American Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (SACEUR) if Europeans want to conduct an independent operation without US troops.

While accepting that they would need an American okay before conducting such an operation, most Europeans would like to be able to take full command of NATO planes and other equipment once that was given. Germany is the only EU country to support Washington when it argues that SACEUR must retain control.

NATO officials hint, however, that France will not stick to its guns for long, and that both Paris and Madrid could announce their decision to join at the Bergen meeting next week.

“The French ideas floated on SACEUR recently are disappearing quickly,” said one.

“If they want to influence the decisions coming up in the next few months, as I suspect they do, they can do that better by being full members,” said another.

Spain's government wants to present its parliament with a proposal for full integration into NATO next month and officials say that, barring unforeseen parliamentary objections, Foreign Minister Abel Matutes could formally submit his country's request for integration when NATO foreign ministers meet in December.

But before then, Premier Jose María Aznar has said, Spain wants NATO's command on Gibraltar demobilised so that Spanish troops will not be forced to serve under the British commander there. While Solana, a Spaniard, says that can be accomplished, British officials choke on the question and say it will not be so easy.

While these matters - and the crucial issue of Russian satisfaction - are preoccupying NATO officials, they are ignoring potential pitfalls within the US.

Although Warren Christopher is an undoubted enthusiast, several obstacles lie in his way - and not only in the shape of growing isolationist sentiment, memories of dead soldiers in Somalia and budget worries.

Some of the most enthusiastic internationalists in the US oppose anything which could possibly alienate Russia. Another problem is a Congress which cares more about shooting down ideas from the White House than agreeing on any issue.

That has not escaped Kohl's notice. Last week, he expressed the hope that NATO enlargement would not become a partisan issue in the US presidential election campaign as it entered the final stages.

The outcome of US elections is only one of the many question marks hanging over NATO's future development.

One British official at alliance headquarters in Brussels has a cartoon on his office wall which reads “Whither NATO?” But if you ask him the same question, he shrugs: “If we all knew that, we would be doing a lot better.”