NATO-Russia accord hailed as success by both sides

Date: 22/05/1997

“WE are now in a new era. We will make the 21st century a century which will redeem the 20th,” proclaimed US ambassador to NATO Robert Hunter an hour after the alliance officially accepted its historic accord with Russia.

Nonetheless, there is still a sense that this cannot really be true. After over three years of talks, can Russia have finally accepted its new role on the world stage?

Although everyone claims the deal is now up and running, it will probably take more than Russian President Boris Yeltsin's signature on the accord in Paris next week to convince the West - and the East for that matter - that the bear has been truly tamed.

Yet the deal which emerged last week between NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana and Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov gave the US everything it wanted, and Yeltsin has proclaimed it a success.

Under the accord, Russia and NATO will set up a special joint council, with a secretariat in Brussels, and hold two foreign and two defence ministerial meetings a year.

Russia will, as a result, be given more information on NATO's activities, but will have no veto over its decisions and no say in any reinforcement of troops in eastern Europe.

In response to concerns that the NATO-Russia Council might still allow Moscow to influence policy through unofficial means - such as bureaucratic delays and long consultations - a senior alliance official stressed: “NATO accepts no limits. All states have an inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security.”

Neither is a commitment by NATO not to place nuclear weapons on new members' territories much of a concession, as there was little desire to do so anyway.

“This is not compensation to Russia for NATO enlargement. This is designed to create a long-range strategic partnership,” said Hunter.

On the other hand, Russia might well be glad of any public support at all. At least NATO recognised the need for a face-saving device which, although in its long-term interest, it was not obliged to do.

And it is apparent that Russia has, in the short-term, won the battle over the Baltic states' membership bids.

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia will not be invited to join NATO this July and are unlikely to be given any special status within the organisation's Partnership for Peace (PFP).

Instead, they will have to settle for a new Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, 'enhancing' the whole PFP programme but unlikely to have any real influence.

As to the other applicants, “even NATO's leaders do not know who they will invite,” said one diplomat this week.

German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, for example, says he will not make his mind up until just before a key meeting of foreign ministers in Sintra, Portugal, next week.

Nevertheless, it seems certain that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will be invited, and Slovenia and Romania seem to be making up some last-minute ground.

Ironically for the world's most formidable military force, officials suggest that the availability of car park places and office space at NATO's Brussels headquarters may be as crucial a factor in its decision as any geo-political considerations.

On a more mundane (but no less political) front, the Sintra meeting will also attempt to settle an internal dispute over NATO restructuring in Europe. Although 90&percent; of the new structure is agreed, according to diplomats, the question of who should head the alliance's southern command continues to cause friction.

Paris and Washington have been at loggerheads for months over whether a European should be given the post and few insiders are yet prepared to predict the outcome.