Seven states queue up to join NATO as Czech Republic hosts historic summit

Date: 21/11/02

By David Cronin

VACLAV Havel is going out in style. Last weekend the Czech President lit a 15-metre pink neon heart in Prague Castle. For the next three months, it will send 'beats' of light across one of Europe's most beautiful cities. According to Havel - due to step down in January - the light is a reminder of the pro-democracy ideals he proclaimed in December 1989.

The ex-playwright became president after leading the Velvet Revolution, so called because of inspiration drawn from New York rock group The Velvet Underground. In the past 13 years his initially tentative embrace of the West has morphed into a bear hug. That will be confirmed this week (21-22 November) as he hosts the first top-level summit of NATO - a club still associated with the East-West friction of the Cold War - in a former communist country.

If things go according to plan, the Cold War's death rattle will reverberate around Wencelas Square. True, the Alliance has already ventured eastwards, welcoming Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into its fold in 1999.

But now it will take an even greater leap towards European unity by inviting seven new states to join: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. (Formal induction requires ratification in each of the existing 19 member countries, which will probably take two years).

Lord Robertson, NATO's secretary-general, has recently been urging EU states to improve their defence capability, which, he says, is considerably inferior to America's. He is advocating that at least 2% of gross domestic product in each EU country should be reserved for defence spending.

To put that sum in context, it would be more than twice the amount which member states have committed to spend on aid to the world's poor.

A new paper from the Brussels-based Centre for European Security and Disarmament points out that many of the budding NATO members are better at hitting Robertson's target than their Western neighbours. 'The fact that almost all spend around 2% of their GDP on defence, more than most [existing] NATO members, is indicative of their desire to be part of the 'Atlantic club',' it adds.

It's little wonder that the arms industry is excited at the prospect of NATO enlargement. As part of their membership drive, the likely new entrants are all modernising their armies, providing defence companies with large sales possibilities.

'There will be new chances, especially for joint purchasing,' says Rainer Ohler, from the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company.

'On the other hand, we all know that these countries are on tight budgets. We're not exaggerating and saying there is a multi-billion business.

'There is a huge challenge and we see it also as an opportunity.'

Arms companies based in the new NATO states are hoping, in particular, to benefit from partnerships with those in the current 19 members.

Slovakia's ministry for economics, for example, declared earlier this month that it hopes to corner a market in the production of wheels for military vehicles. More generally, it believes joining NATO strengthens the possibility of reviving its weapons manufacturers - they accounted for 60% of industrial production before 1990 but the percentage has slumped in the interim.

Although the summit will almost definitely help usher in a more cohesive Europe, it will also highlight that some divisions continue to persist.

Preparations for the event have served as a reminder that the continent hasn't been entirely purged of authoritarianism.

Even though Belarus is one of 46 countries in NATO's 'partnership for peace', President Alexander Lukashenko won't be boarding a plane to Prague. Last weekend the Czech authorities revealed he had been denied a visa to enter their country because of his poor human rights record.

NATO insiders want his counterpart in neighbouring Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, to stay away too. Kuchma has been implicated in a journalist's murder, mired in corruption scandals and - worst of all, from a US point of view - accused of rubberstamping the sale of military hardware to Iraq.

Kuchma has indicated he is determined to attend the summit - even though he hasn't been officially invited. And Czech Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda this week said his government won't block Kuchma's visit.

'There is a gap between Lukashenko and Kuchma,' Svoboda told European Voice. 'In Belarus we do not see any progress in the field of human rights and economic and social transition. For Lukashenko, NATO is still an aggressive military pact. But Ukraine is interested in creating better relations with NATO.'

Meanwhile, there are hopes that the summit will edge towards a resolution of that ongoing conundrum over granting the EU's new military structures access to NATO assets.

The question remains hostage to wrangling between historical foes Greece and Turkey. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the unofficial new leader of Turkey, has indicated that he and premier Abdullah Gül will take a pragmatic approach to the issue - but will not be rushed into ending the division of Cyprus, which is seen as the biggest stumbling-block to a deal.

The absence of an accord has already undermined hopes for the EU's planned rapid reaction force to take over the NATO-led Amber Fox mission in Macedonia.

France had formerly blocked an extension of the 700-strong NATO force's peacekeeping mandate, due to expire on 15 December, but reports yesterday (20 November) indicate it is willing to compromise - and has called for a February review.NATO figures, including Robertson, have been at pains recently to stress that the Alliance should complement the EU rather than compete with it. Therefore, he will probably stress the differences between the planned 21,000-strong NATO Response Force (the brainchild of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld) and the EU's 60,000-strong rapid reaction force.

Last month, Robertson told MEPs that the former is designed to carry out high-intensity combat operations, whereas the latter will be restricted to the so-called Petersberg tasks. These mainly relate to peacekeeping and humanitarian work, but it is foreseen they may extend to using force for 'peacemaking'.

Inevitably Iraq will not be far from anyone's mind at the summit. US President George Bush will use the opportunity to consult with European leaders, including Jacques Chirac, about tackling Saddam Hussein's government.

Speaking on the eve of the conference, after talks with Vaclav Havel, Bush called on NATO to refocus its strategy from the Cold War to fighting terrorism.

He said: 'The enemy is not Russia - the enemy is global terrorists who hate freedom, and together we can work to defeat that enemy in the name of freedom.'

Condoleeza Rice, the US national security advisor, said earlier: 'We will hear from NATO partners what they are prepared to do and what they can do.'

At this stage, though, there seems to be zero chance that NATO could officially throw its weight behind an onslaught of Baghdad and Basra.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has categorically ruled out that possibility. In a Q&A with this paper this week (see Pages 16-17), Robertson diplomatically declined to answer a question on whether he supported a military operation against Hussein.

Nevertheless, NATO has already taken a vote on attacking Iraq - albeit in a fictitious setting. The scenario involved two imaginary countries, bearing an uncanny resemblance to Iraq and Turkey, with the former preparing to launch a chemical and biological strike on the latter.

By the end of the one-week planning operation, two of the biggest NATO members were willing to resort to 'pre-emptive strikes' but they could not win support from the other 17. It all sounds eerily familiar.

Major feature previewing the NATO summit, Prague, 21-22 November 2002.