James W. Morrison
National Defense University
At the 1994 NATO Summit, heads of state and government issued statements specifying additional criteria for inviting states to become members of NATO and joining and participating in the Partnership for Peace program, which has been suggested as a prerequisite for joining NATO per se (see appendix C).
The January 1994 NATO Summit document on PFP suggests that for a state eventually to become a member of NATO it must be located in Europe and be east of NATO, must be a democracy, must be able to promote NATO principles and security, and must be an active PFP participant.
Elements of the NATO Summit document on PFP that could be regarded as suggesting criteria for joining PFP and cooperating in PFP, which the above suggests are prerequisites to being invited to join NATO, include:
Additional criteria could be so general as to be meaningless or to permit to qualify for membership states which NATO members might not want in NATO. NATO flexibility would be greater if NATO could merely say that NATO states had assessed the entire situation and made a judgment that selected countries should be invited to join NATO; they would avoid pitfalls involved in trying to justify the decision in terms of specific criteria and how some countries met the criteria and others did not. It is conceivable that additional criteria might be so specific and stringent that questions would arise as to whether all present members of NATO meet or have met these criteria. Finally, in trying to develop and agree upon additional criteria, NATO would have to expend much time and effort and run risks of internal conflict among allies in trying to reach consensus.
There are arguments in favor of having NATO specify additional criteria for membership. Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, has called for NATO early in 1995 to declare criteria and indicate which countries appear to meet these.Note 82 Another approach would suggest that enumerating criteria would help ensure that the new democracies pursue reforms desired by NATO. An argument can also be made that additional criteria could be used as visible benchmarks on the path to NATO membership, instilling increasing confidence in those following the path that they will ultimately gain NATO membership. Specifying additional criteria could also be useful if NATO wants to delay accession for one reason or another.
One report in the fall of 1994 indicated that the U.S. Government, in an attempt to acknowledge East European continued efforts to join NATO while avoiding adverse consequences in Russia, had proposed to NATO allies that at the December 1994 North Atlantic Council Meeting of NATO foreign ministers NATO announce new guidance in the form of "precepts" for NATO expansion. U.S. Presidential National Security Advisor Anthony Lake was said to have ordered the development of the precepts because President Clinton and he wanted at least to give the appearance of movement toward expansion. The precepts were said to be a compromise between no further guidance and providing clear criteria. U.S. officials were said to have described the precepts as rules meant to provide more concrete guideposts to NATO membership but not to guarantee it. One U.S. official was quoted as saying, "Precepts are things we will take into account for membership. That doesn't mean you get in if you meet them all, or are locked out if you don't." A U.S. official was also quoted as saying, "Don't make too big a deal of what we're up to. The near- term goal is to get the alliance to agree to begin a formal process, aimed at defining what it will take to expand. The potential new partners have to know what they must bring to the table."Note 83
Another report suggested that NATO would offer guidelines but not specific dates for membership and that the guidelines would be sufficiently stringent that no country would be able to meet them for several years. The guidelines were said to include either an "irreversible commitment to democracy" or a "full functioning democracy." They also would include full civilian control of the military, including civilianization of defense ministries and militarization of the military in the sense of eliminating security organs from the military. Another guideline was said to be military equipment and communications interchangeable with those of NATO members.Note 84
The U.S. Congress, in its NATO Participation Act of 1994, expressed the sense of the Congress on NATO expansion, citing six criteria democratic institutions, free market economy, civilian control of the military, rule of law, protection of citizens' rights, and respect for neighbors' territorial integrity. The legislation stated that it was the sense of the Congress that:
(B) remain committed to protecting the rights of all their citizens and respecting the territorial integrity of their neighbors.Note 85
A bill introduced 4 January 1995 in the House of Representatives, H.R. 7, given the short title of "National Security Revitalization Act," includes as Title VI a proposed "NATO Revitalization and Expansion Act of 1995," which proposes additional new criteria for NATO membership (see text at appendix F.) This bill emphasizes that "In particular, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia have made significant progress toward establishing democratic institutions, free market economies, civilian control of their armed forces, police, and intelligence services, and the rule of law since the fall of their previous Communist governments." The bill goes on to state that these four countries should be invited to become full NATO members no later than 10 January 1999 provided they:
The bill also states that any other countries would have to be "European countries emerging from Communist domination," and defines which states meet this definition.
Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, speaking at a conference in Munich in early February 1995, reportedly suggested criteria along the following lines: "New members must be prepared to defend the alliance and have the capable, professional military force to do it." They would have to "uphold democracy and free enterprise, protect freedom and human rights inside their borders, and respect sovereignty outside their borders." They would have to agree to decision-making by consensus, and their armed forces would have to be compatible with NATO's, working under civilian control, sharing common views of strategy and tactics, and having interchangeable equipment, especially in communications.Note 87
Is full membership in NATO the only option, or is some form of partial or associate membership, similar to the approach taken by the WEU, a possibility for NATO?
The U.S. Government and NATO may earlier have considered the possibility of some form of "associate membership" in NATO, but they appear more or less to have abandoned such a concept, at least temporarily if not permanently. In January 1994 NATO adopted PFP and the concept of "partners." Leaders now appear to be thinking of progression from "partnership" to "full membership." The communique issued by NATO Foreign Ministers in connection with their semi-annual meeting in December 1994 stated that "All new members of NATO will be full members of the Alliance, enjoying the rights and assuming all obligations of membership."Note 88 The new legislation in Congress, H.R. 7, calls for "full" membership for the four Visegrad states no later than 10 January 1999 (see appendix F).
The WEU has four categories of association. In addition to the WEU's 10 full members, the WEU has three "associate members" (Iceland, Norway, and Turkey), two "observers" (Ireland and Denmark), and nine "associate partners" (the Visegrad four, three Baltic states, and Bulgaria and Romania). The WEU permits associate members, observers, and associate partners to participate in approximately half of its Council meetings.
Additional forms of association with NATO short of full membership, such as associate membership, could conceivably, provide provisions designed to enhance security. Such provisions could stop short of providing the Article 5 security guarantees (assist if attacked) available to parties to the Treaty. In section 8 of the PFP Framework Agreement, NATO has already come close to extending to PFP partners the benefits of Article 4 of the Treaty which promises consultation if a party believes it has been threatened. Section 8 reads, "NATO will consult with any active participant in the Partnership if that partner perceives a direct threat to its territorial integrity, political independence, or security."Note 89
In late 1993 Senator William S. Cohen proposed expanding NATO step by step. He called for "growing selected NATO institutions into NACC ones and opening up certain others to countries meeting appropriate conditions. This would help those countries capable of it to grow into NATO step by step, give them a more secure place to anchor during the transition period, and minimize concerns of those unlikely ever to qualify for full membership that NATO is seeking to isolate or exclude them."Note 90
Of the 25 states that have joined together with NATO's 16 members in PFP, most from Central and Eastern Europe have indicated interest in joining NATO. Some have been very vocal and desire membership as soon as possible. Others have been more reserved, perhaps believing that they are not realistically candidates for early membership. Among the 25 PFP partners, those who appear to desire NATO membership are Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. Austria, Finland, Slovenia, and Sweden have not indicated an interest in acceding to the NATO Treaty. Russian officials have made ambiguous statements about joining NATO. Perhaps with the exception of Ukraine, no other state in the CIS has indicated an interest in acceding to the Treaty.
When they adopted PFP in January 1994, NATO Summit leaders did not differentiate among states, appearing to suggest that any NACC or OSCE participant could join PFP and any PFP participant might be considered for NATO membership. U.S. officials have generally avoided suggesting that some PFP participants might become NATO members and others would likely not. Some allies, particularly the Germans, have been outspoken in suggesting that it is almost inconceivable that Russia would ever be invited to join NATO.Note 91
U.S. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, in response to a question during Congressional testimony appears to have gone beyond previous U.S. statements when he indicated that many PFP participants would never qualify for NATO membership. Secretary Perry's statement was made in response to a question from Rep. Herbert H. Bateman, who had suggested that administration statements had been misleading and should not deceive people into thinking that PFP is going to bring them to NATO membership "when it would be irrational to extend NATO that far." Mr. Perry reportedly replied that "For those countries qualified to become NATO members, and only those countries, the Partnership for Peace is a path to NATO membership. Many members of the Partnership for Peace will never qualify for NATO membership. . . . Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that point."Note 92 Another article indicated that Mr. Perry said that PFP was "a necessary but not a sufficient condition for NATO membership."Note 93
The Washington Post article reporting this exchange also reported that a Pentagon spokesman had indicated that Mr. Perry's remark "is not a policy statement as much as it is a statement of the obvious," and that a Pentagon official has said that countries such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are among the least likely to be invited to join NATO, and that Secretary of State Warren Christopher has insisted that giving preference to certain countries over others would demoralize those left in waiting.Note 94
Richard Holbrooke, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs, reportedly has prepared an article for a forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs in which he wrote, "The PFP will be a permanent part of the European security scene even as NATO expands to take in some, but not all, PFP members."Note 95
Henry Kissinger has criticized proposals for exploring NATO expansion with all members of PFP, saying this will lead either to stalemate or confrontation. He has written that "Russia will either veto expansion or approve it only if Russia itself becomes a member. In that case, NATO would stop being a defensive alliance and turn into a system of general collective security similar to the United Nations.Note 96
The U.S. Congress, in the NATO Participation Act of 1994, expressed the sense of the Congress that "in particular, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia have made significant progress toward establishing democratic institutions, free market economies, civilian control of their armed forces, and the rule of law since the fall of their previous communist governments." The legislation provides authority so that "The President may establish a program to assist the transition to full NATO membership of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia." It also provides authority for the President to designate for assistance other Partnership for Peace countries emerging from communist domination when the President determines and reports to the relevant committees of Congress that these countries meet criteria specified by Congress.Note 97
Most advocates of NATO expansion view the Czech Republic and Poland as two of the most qualified states. Many would add Hungary and possibly Slovakia to any "most qualified" list. Some would add the Baltic states, and some would add Bulgaria and Romania, and perhaps others.
German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel, in an interview published in early February 1995, stated, "The security needs of the Central and East European countries and of the Baltic states have been taken into account relatively strongly. It has been clarified whether they should join NATO. Now the question is only when and how they will join. And pursuing this when and how together with Russia and certainly not against Russia is also in the interest of the Central and East European countries."Note 98 Kinkel did not elaborate on when NATO made any such clarifications regarding CEE and Baltic states.
The Czech Republic. The Czech Republic has established what appears to be a solid foundation for democracy and is moving forward relatively aggressively on economic reform toward establishing a market economy. Czech President Havel has indicated that he does not see any danger of Communist forces being strengthened again in the Czech Republic and has said that so far about 80 percent of the Czech economy has been privatized.Note 99 The Czechs have pursued military reform in terms of developing a defensive doctrine and defensive orientations for the armed forces and have been working to establish a framework for civil-military relations under which the military will be responsible to duly elected civilian authorities.
Poland. U.S. Ambassador to the United States, Madeleine Albright, reportedly told Poland's President Lech Walsea in the fall of 1994 that Poland would be among the first to be allowed to join NATO.Note 100 Poland, however, has faced several changes of governments and continuing disputes of a constitutional nature between the Polish president and successive defense ministers appointed by the prime minister over control of the defense establishment. These disputes have continued and may not be resolved until after Polish elections later in 1995. Also, in recent months, former Communists have been named to positions in the Polish government. President Walesa is reported to have approved the nomination for Prime Minister of Jozef Oleksy, "a leader of the liberal wing of Poland's post-communist Democratic Left Alliance," who would be "the first former-Communist official to serve as prime minister since the Communist Party lost power to Solidarity in 1989."Note 101
Hungary and Slovakia. Hungary and Slovakia have generally been considered the third and fourth most qualified candidates for NATO membership. Their progress on reform is generally judged to be slightly behind that of the Czech Republic and Poland but ahead of most other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Slovakia, to its leaders' dismay, is sometimes omitted from lists suggested by various individuals of states believed to be qualified for early NATO membership, including lists containing the names of the other Visegrad states.
Bulgaria and Romania. Bulgaria and Romania were slower to implement reforms than the Visegrad states, and they do not appear to enjoy as much international support as the Visegrad states.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The Baltic states enjoy considerable sympathy and support in the West, but they generally do not receive the priority given the Visegrad states, as witness U.S. legislation and their sequencing in association with the EU and WEU. Some may be concerned that extending NATO membership to these states at an early stage could provoke adverse reactions within Russia and within the Russian ethnic minority populations in these Baltic states, reactions beyond any that might arise regarding accession by the Visegrad states. A New York Times report in early February 1995 stated, "Senior diplomats and NATO officials made it very clear that extending NATO membership into the former Soviet Union, even to the Baltics and Ukraine, was almost inconceivable for the next decade or more."Note 102 A similar report stated that as for the Baltic nations, one official said: "NATO will have a hard time accepting countries that are militarily indefensible."Note 103
Albania. Many states in Western Europe, including NATO allies, appear to regard Albania as in a separate category from the majority of Central and East European states. With the exception of states of the former Yugoslavia, Albania is the only CEE state not invited to enter into an "associate agreement" with the EU or to be invited to become an "associate partner" in the WEU. European NATO allies might not accord Albania high priority for NATO membership.
Over 40 years ago, in March 1954, the Soviet Union, via a diplomatic note, sought membership in NAT0 in a move that at least one analyst has called a diversion, following Soviet proposals for an alternative all-European security treaty.Note 104 In a responding note of May 1954, France, the United States, and the United Kingdom rejected Moscow's bid for NATO membership.Note 105 According to the draft approved by foreign ministers of the three allies, the rejection was to have referred to "the completely unreal character" of the Soviet suggestion, characterized the suggestion as contrary to the principles of the Western defense system and security, referred to the principle of individual liberty and the rule of law, and concluded that: "All [NATO's] decisions are taken by unanimous consent. The Soviet Union as a member of the organization would therefore be in a position to veto every decision. None of the member states is prepared to allow their joint defense system to be disrupted in this way."Note 106
Whether Russia or CIS members located east of the Ural Mountains could be invited to accede to the NATO Treaty is a question that might require legal review. Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that parties to the Treaty can invite to accede to the Treaty "any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area." Definitions of Europe usually suggest that Europe extends eastward only to the Ural Mountains and Ural River and southeastward to the Transcaucasus.Note 107 Much of Russia nearly three-quarters of its land mass lies in Asia, east of the Urals. Accession of Turkey to the NATO Treaty in 1952, however, would seem to offer a precedent for a state like Russia, which lies partially in Europe and partially in Asia, to be eligible to accede to the Treaty, other issues notwithstanding. With regard to the Treaty's criterion of being able to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area, a case could also be made, from a purely geographical standpoint, that Russia is physically located where it could contribute as much if not more to security of the North Atlantic area than some other candidates.
A narrow definition of Europe and a strict interpretation of Article 10 might disqualify from NATO membership those states of the CIS lying fully east of the Ural Mountains, including Kazakhstan (which is south and mostly east of the Urals), Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Whether Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan lie partly within or outside Europe is debatable.
All these successor states to the former Soviet Union have been accepted as members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe but then the United States and Canada, clearly geographically outside Europe, are also members of OSCE. Moreover, these successor states were accepted as members of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, and further, NATO declarations and statements since the end of 1993 opened PFP to any member of NACC and CSCE/OSCE and have implied that PFP participation is a prerequisite for NATO membership.
The issue of admission of states of the CIS, as well as other states in Europe, has also arisen in the Council of Europe (COE). The Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Daniel Tarschys, in a recently published article, has indicated that Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova all now COE "guests" are considered "European" and could become members of COE, as could Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia if they indicate their willingness to be considered as part of Europe. With regard to states in Central Asia, he did not mention either "guest" status or membership but only assistance in democratic reforms if they are interested.Note 108
Tarschys wrote that membership in the COE is "in principle open only to states whose national territory lies wholly or partly in Europe and whose culture is closely linked with European culture." Further, he suggested that "The boundaries of Europe have not yet been comprehensively defined under international law. The Council of Europe therefore should, in principle, base itself on the generally accepted geographical limits of Europe." Continuing his line of reasoning, Tarschys said that all present members of COE (33 in number) are "European," and so are states whose legislative assemblies enjoy special guest status with the COE Parliamentary Assembly, specifically, within the CIS, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova, as well as Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Latvia, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. All these "guests," except Bosnia-Herzegovina, have applied for COE membership, and accession procedures are underway.
Tarschys also stated that "In view of their cultural links with Europe, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia would have the possibility of applying for membership provided they clearly indicate their will to be considered as part of Europe." COE ministers in 1992 indicated that closer relations with COE would require democratic reform and commitment to resolving conflicts by peaceful means. Finally, with regard to the Central Asian states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), Tarschys, mentioning a goal of enhancing stability in the region, wrote that COE ministers considered that relations between COE and these states should be "based on flexible and practical arrangements with a view to helping the purposes of democratic reforms if the countries concerned have expressed a desire for such cooperation."
The European Union has entered into "partnership and cooperation" agreements with Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. These agreements do not imply potential membership in the EU, as do "associate" agreements, which have been concluded between the EU and the four Visegrad states and Bulgaria and Romania and are being negotiated with the three Baltic states. The WEU has accepted these nine Central and East European states as "associate partners" but has not extended such invitations to any states from the CIS.
Russia. There appears to be considerable sentiment in NATO member states that Russia should not be permitted to join NATO but that some form of unique relationship between NATO and Russia should be established. It is not clear whether or not Russia would even want to join NATO. While President Yeltsin has hinted that some day Russia might want to join, Defense Minister Grachev has indicated that Russia has no plans to apply, saying, "We will go our own way."Note 109 Arguments that have been or could be used for not inviting Russia to join NATO include the following:
German officials, particularly Defense Minister Volker Ruehe, have been among the more vocal opponents to considering possible NATO membership for Russia. Minister Ruehe is reported to have told a German-American business conference in early September 1994 that Russia would never achieve the "homogeneity" required of NATO and EU members. He reportedly said: "If Russia were to become a member of NATO it would blow NATO apart. It would be like the United Nations of Europe it wouldn't work. The Poles are learning English for NATO but the Russians want us to learn Russian. I just don't see Russia, long-term, being governed by Brussels. It cannot be integrated."Note 111
Former Czech Foreign Minister Jiri Dienstbier spoke out in opposition to Russian membership in NATO and the EU, reportedly saying that Russia is an unstable country and its membership would not reinforce security but become a disturbing factor.Note 112
Henry Kissinger argued, "Russian membership in NATO would dissolve the Atlantic Alliance into just such a vague system (general collective security system similar to the United Nations) without meeting the security concerns of Europe, especially of Eastern Europe, or of America. It would remove NATO as a shield of Western Europe because the NATO obligation does not run to protecting its members against each other. Instead, it would place NATO's frontiers at the borders of China. This is why Russian membership in NATO and in the European Union was standard fare in Communist times."Note 113
U.S. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry reportedly told the German-American business conference referenced above that, while he did not see Russia "as an early candidate" for NATO membership, he was "not prepared to close the door on that issue."Note 114
Then-President of the EU's European Commission Jacques Delors, when asked during an interview in December 1994 about Russia and the EU, stated, "I think the Russia is a great power in itself, but its entry into the European Union would take us to the borders of Asia inside Asia even and this is why few people with common sense intend to include Russia in the EU. Yet we must have a close agreement for partnership and cooperation with Russia."Note 115
Many believe that NATO will have to develop with Russia some form of unique relationship of one kind or another if NATO is, without offering NATO membership, to have cooperation from Russia. This relationship would likely reflect Russia's importance in terms of the size of its territory, population, resources, and defense establishment, including its strategic nuclear capability.
German Defense Minister Ruehe reportedly proposed to NATO Defense Ministers in May 1994 offering Russia a "partnership without adjectives" such as "strategic," "pragmatic," "cooperative," or "privileged."Note 116
In June 1994, following Russia's signing the PFP framework agreement, NATO released publicly a document entitled "Summary of Conclusions of Discussions Between the North Atlantic Council and Foreign Minister of Russia Andrey Kozyrev." The document contained four main points:
NATO Foreign Ministers, in their December 1994 Ministerial communique, addressed NATO relations with Russia. In addition to emphasizing the need to address security issues on a Europe- wide basis and not make new divisions in Europe, they affirmed their support for reform in Russia and called for active Russian participation in a "cooperative European security architecture." They welcomed an initial program of consultations and cooperation between NATO and Russia on the basis of conclusions from a June 1994 meeting between the North Atlantic Council and the Russian Foreign Minister regarding areas where Russia has a unique or particularly important contribution to make. They proposed to use the opportunity of their regular NATO Foreign Ministers meetings to meet with Russian ministers whenever useful. They also proposed that experts meet to discuss key issues.Note 118
The Russian Foreign Minister, however, surprised NATO Foreign Ministers during their December 1994 meeting by refusing, at the last minute, to sign an individual partnership program related to Russia's participation in PFP, saying he did not understand NATO's policy of expansion.Note 119 Kozyrev said he was acting in protest of NATO's planned expansion into Eastern Europe, saying "Moscow's strategy is partnership. If the strategy of NATO has changed and is now aimed at enlargement, that requires future discussion and maybe further decisions. So we have to come back later to implement."Note 120
NATO Secretary-General Claes in an interview apparently in late January 1995 indicated that Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Afanazevskiy on 30 January had conveyed to him Russia's desire to reach agreements with NATO beyond those in PFP and an additional document for a "broad and consolidated political dialogue" between Russia and NATO. Claes indicated that, despite the conflict in Chechnya, he thought if Russia were ready to sign, the NATO Council would still vote in favor of signing these two agreements. Claes described the second agreement as "a deal concerning a broad and more intensive political dialogue that involves, apart from a mutual exchange of information and consultations, also political cooperation as laid down in the basic document." He cites Afanazevskiy's statement, "In view of your intentions to expand NATO, we might require something else in order to settle our relationships." Claes' response: "I have no authority to provide an official response, but I suppose we are prepared to provide additional elements." Claes indicated that he had advised Afanazevskiy to carefully look at the document on intensified cooperation, but, while Afanazevskiy "did not exactly say no . . . he insisted on a few additional structures and on the conclusion of a few agreements dealing with quite specific topics." Claes concluded that he still had not received any concrete indication that Moscow was prepared to sign the PFP and intensive political cooperation documents.Note 121
The United States was reported to be ready to press the Russians on PFP participation during talks in Washington in late February. A Clinton administration official reported that Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott would hand Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mamedov a letter from President Clinton specifying the need for Russia to join the PFP program (or sign up to a PFP individual partnership program) before moving on to a special relationship.Note 122
In February 1995 German Defense Minister Volker Ruehe reportedly told the Bundestag Defense Committee that NATO intends to conclude an "agreement on a strategic partnership between NATO and Russia." Ruehe reportedly said that Moscow has specific expectations for new consultation instruments that guarantee Russia "co-determination" in European security. Ruehe apparently also suggested that it was "absolutely necessary" that a more intensive cooperation with Russia accompany not only the acceptance of new members by NATO but also "the path leading there," and he indicated that practical organization of the partnership has already "progressed quite far" and could lead to specific results in the first 6 months of this year, "for instance to formal correspondence on the further handling of this important issue." Ruehe indicated it was important for Moscow not to be confronted with faits accomplis or surprises on NATO expansion, but he said NATO could not accept a Russian right of veto. He suggested the formula for the negotiations has to be "No veto no surprises."Note 123
A unique relationship between NATO and Russia could be manifest in the form of a treaty. This could be a treaty of friendship and cooperation or a more strategic one. Provisions might be made to keep each side informed of the other's activities, to help prevent suspicion or misunderstanding. Some form of structure to the relationship might be negotiated, to help with consultation, coordination, and communication. NATO would want to avoid any suggestion of a Russian veto over NATO activities.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who opposes Russian membership in NATO, proposed a "treaty of alliance and cooperation" between NATO and Russia, to be coupled with inclusion in NATO of several Central European democratic states. He suggested that such a treaty would "provide the Russians with a gratifying recognition of their country's status as a major power while embracing Russia within a wider framework of Eurasian security."Note 124
Christoph Bertram, currently a diplomatic correspondent for the German newspaper Die Zeit, argued in an article that Russia must not be invited to join NATO but that a new "Russia-NATO forum" must be created:
Lothar Ruehl, formerly German State Secretary of Defense and now a writer for Die Welt, suggested a European security treaty between NATO allies, the Russian Federation, and all other interested European states. On the basis of such a Treaty, which could be within the OSCE framework or some new framework, a European Security Council could be established, comprising the United States, Russia, and the EU or Britain, France, Germany, and Italy.Note 126
Ukraine. If some form of special relationship is established with Russia, what form of relationship might there be with Ukraine? NATO might want to enter into some form of similar relationship with Ukraine, given its size and importance. Other options might include a NATO-Ukraine relationship less structured than that with Russia but more structured than the Partnership for Peace, and, finally, a continued PFP and NACC participation for Ukraine.
Other Eurasian States. What type of relationship is established between NATO and Russia and Ukraine may impact on the types of relationships between NATO and other states in the CIS. It would be difficult to imagine that, if Russia is not invited to join NATO, any other states of the CIS would be invited to join.
Slovenia. Slovenia has joined PFP. Two factors militating against NATO membership for Slovenia are Slovenia's strategic relationship to former Yugoslavia and a political-economic dispute with Italy dating back to World War II, which has impacted on closer EU-Slovenia relations.
When should new members be admitted to NATO? To what extent is timing of CEE states' accession to NATO affected by the timing of their joining the EU and WEU and by consideration of NATO relations with Russia?
The U.S. administration and NATO have avoided suggesting any timetable for accession by new members. NATO Foreign Ministers announced at their 1 December 1994 meeting that they had agreed, "It is premature to discuss the timeframe for enlargement or which particular countries would be invited to join the Alliance."Note 127
An article in The New York Times reported, "German and American policymakers tend to think that Central European countries might qualify for NATO closer to five years from now. French, Spanish, and Italian experts prefer a slower approach, and the British are somewhere in between."Note 128
The issue of whether CEE states should join NATO first, the EU/WEU first, or all nearly simultaneously appears to be lying just below the surface of public debate. A press report on a December 1994 meeting of German and Polish experts suggests this issue has become a bone of contention. The report indicates that inviting CEE states to join NATO first is supported by the CEE states, German Defense Minister Ruehe, and the United States primarily for reasons of security and relative ease of joining NATO. France is reported to be the primary opponent of this, arguing that EU membership should come first, as security guarantees will not be credible if they have no solid political and economic foundation. The German government was said to adhere to a diplomatic formula of "close links" between NATO and EU expansion. Bonn was said to believe that combining NATO and EU membership for CEE states could dispel Russian fears.Note 129
Another press report indicates that German Foreign Minister Kinkel and European colleagues have always linked EU accession with NATO membership. Kinkel is said to have a concept of moving the states that wish to join closer to the EU and NATO "without a time constraint." French diplomats are said to see no reason to speed up the NATO accession process, and Foreign Minister Juppe is said to believe the end of 1996 would be the earliest date for starting EU membership negotiations.Note 130 A press report in mid-February 1995 suggested that Kinkel was now more favorable to NATO expansion.Note 131
On the other hand, a Dutch press report referring to a "golden rule" that CEE states would have to follow the "royal path" of first joining the EU, then the WEU, and only after that, NATO, indicated in early November 1994 that the EU's Commissioner for External Affairs, Hans van den Broek, believes that CEE states, which he sees not joining the EU before the turn of the century, might join NATO before they join the EU and WEU. The same report suggested that the United States was inclined to allow CEE states to join NATO earlier and not wait for EU membership.Note 132
Others seem to tie timing of NATO accession more to Western leaders concerns about Russia and its reactions. Czech President Havel said, "Regarding NATO membership, which we desire, I have seen too much restraint and carefulness in the West so far. I would not dare to interpret this hesitation as an indication of a new Yalta, but I would rather say it is proof of accustomed stereotypes in thinking and a lack of courage for new solutions."Note 133 Henry Kissinger argued: "Failure to expand NATO in the near future is likely to prove irrevocable. Russian opposition is bound to grow as its economy gains strength; the nations of Central Europe may drift out of their association with Europe."Note 134 Former NSC Staff official Peter Rodman suggested the Clinton administration's approach has been "gradualist to a fault" and argued, "It's time to accept the fact that NATO expansion is inescapable and necessary, that a negative Russian reaction is also unavoidable and that we might as well do it quickly and get it over with."Note 135
Alexander Vershbow, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs on the U.S. National Security Council Staff, is reported to have told foreign reporters in fall 1994 he could foresee NATO expansion in the first half of a second term for President Clinton.Note 136 A press report in early November 1994, prior to the NATO Ministerial meeting that launched the year-long study of NATO expansion, indicated that U.S. and Western diplomats were suggesting that NATO would set forth guidelines for joining NATO and that even the four leading candidates Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia were unlikely to be able to meet these for several years and were unlikely to be admitted before the year 2000, perhaps waiting until 2005.Note 137
With NATO's decision to study and discuss the expansion issue through most of 1995, it seems clear that, unless circumstances arise resulting in accelerated action, there will be no new NATO members in 1995. After NATO consultations internally and with Partners in 1995, it is an open question whether or not states may be invited to join NATO between now and the beginning of the 21st century.
German Defense Minister Ruehe's report to the Bundestag in February that within the next 6 months a formal exchange of letters between NATO and Russia for a bilateral security treaty could indicate that progress with CEE states on NATO expansion could be accelerated. Central and East European leaders appear to believe that NATO will make decisions on NATO expansion by the end of 1995, when the NATO study is reported to December NATO foreign ministers' meeting. Some have also suggested that Russian military operations in Chechnya may have influenced thinking about moving forward with expansion. Czech President Havel was reported in mid-January to have said that the thought of security integration of former Eastern bloc states into NATO was near and that he envisaged Czech integration into the EU by the end of this millennium.Note 138
An early February report on NATO expansion by The New York Times stated, "In private, Western diplomats and NATO officials make it clear that expansion will not be quick four or five years away and that it will be limited to the four so-called Visegrad countries."Note 139
The issue of sequencing admission of new members is a particularly sensitive one. Should one or two members probably the Czech Republic and/or Poland be admitted initially, with others to follow, or should several perhaps the Visegrad four or even more be admitted at the same time? Should decisions be made and announced on an ad hoc basis, or should there be some overall timetable or plan.
At their 1 December 1994 meeting, NATO Foreign Ministers agreed "That, when it occurs, enlargement will be decided on a case-by-case basis and that some nations may attain membership before others."Note 140
Czech radio, reporting on a meeting between Czech President Havel and British Prime Minister John Major in early December 1994, stated that Major had repeated that the fundamental decision on NATO's expansion has been made and that candidates would be accepted individually, not suddenly but slowly and carefully.Note 141
Following a September 1994 meeting among the Defense Ministers of Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, and Czech First Deputy Defense Minister Jiri Pospisil, Pospisil reportedly said that the Czech Republic was blocking the idea of joint action by the four states regarding NATO and that was why the Czech Defense Ministry had recommended Defense Minister Baudys not attend the meeting.Note 142 Following the same meeting, Slovak President Michal Kovac reportedly said that although all four states might not join NATO at the same time, there should not be too big a gap between their joining.Note 143
The implications of decisions on sequencing will depend in part on who is invited to join and who is not, the expectations of states and the extent to which all parties were consulted in advance, and the existence of other forms of cooperation between NATO and states not invited to join at the outset.
In the states not admitted, the position of reformers could be undercut, particularly if the reformers were advocates of NATO membership, and if prospects for NATO accession were very uncertain or dim.
States not admitted early on might be suspicious and upset and could create problems. They might be particularly distrustful if a state they view as a rival or possible threat is admitted and they are not. Some could challenge what criteria NATO use in selecting new members and how NATO made its assessment of which states met the criteria. Some might be concerned that if a rival were admitted to NATO and they were not, the rival, once admitted, might block their subsequent admittance. For example, given ethnic tensions between Romania and Hungary, the Romanians could be concerned that Hungary, if admitted first, might try to block Romanian accession.
Supporters of expansion appear to recognize the risks but believe they can be managed. Allied officials appear to want to place NATO expansion in a broader security context for Europe and Eurasia, one without dividing lines.
NATO Foreign Ministers, at their December 1994 meeting, attempted to do this in the communique that they issued. They spoke of the Alliance's ability to "contribute to stability and cooperation in the whole of Europe," and its ability to offer "a broad approach to building political, military and economic stability for all European countries," and consultation with Partners "about the evolution of the security architecture of Europe." They also stated, "Enlargement, when it comes, would be part of a broad European security architecture based on true cooperation throughout the whole of Europe. It would threaten no one and would enhance stability and security for all of Europe." They added,
Since the initiation of PFP in January 1994, 25 states have become "partners" by signing framework agreements. As of January 1995, some 10 states had taken the next step and signed Individual Partnership Program documents, announcing what they were prepared to do as part of PFP. Each document was initiated separately by the respective state and worked separately with NATO.
PFP partner states have been given office space in a new wing constructed at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, and a Partnership Coordination Cell has been established, with offices in a separate building, at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe in Mons, Belgium. A good number of the PFP partners have already assigned liaison personnel to man these offices and participate in PFP activities at these NATO headquarters. PFP is designed to build closer relationships between NATO and PFP partners. NATO Secretary General Willy Claes wrote, "Through PFP we seek to build the habits of consultation, trust and cooperation which the Allies have developed among themselves for many decades.Note 145 Mr. Claes also indicated that much of the cooperation will be in the military area. NATO and PFP partners have planned and conducted exercises of forces, including exercises in both Poland and the Netherlands involving ground force units from many countries, and additional ones have been held or are planned. Partner states will nominate forces and assets that they will bring to the Partnership, and, related to those forces, approaches will be built to peacekeeping and humanitarian support operations. NATO will help share expertise on creating democratically organized and accountable Ministries of Defense. A defense planning and review process based on the NATO system will be introduced.Note 146
The U.S. Congress. On 2 November 1994 the President signed into law the NATO Participation Act of 1994, Public Law 103-447, Title II. This legislation expresses the sense of the Congress that NATO leaders are to be commended for reaffirming that NATO membership remains open to PFP countries and encourages NATO membership for the Visegrad states and any others that meet six criteria specified in the legislation (see appendix E for enumeration of these criteria).
The legislation authorizes the President to designate PFP countries to receive U.S. assistance if they meet the six criteria plus a criterion against having provided defense articles to terrorist states. The U.S. assistance program is to facilitate the transition of states to full NATO membership by supporting and encouraging inter alia (1) joint planning, training, and military exercises with NATO forces, (2) greater interoperability of military equipment, air defense systems, and command, control, and communications systems, and (3) conformity of military doctrine. The legislation authorizes the President to provide security assistance in the form of transfer of certain types of excess defense articles, International Military Education and Training, and Foreign Military Financing. Finally, the legislation expresses the sense of the Congress that designated countries should be included in activities related to increased standardization and enhanced interoperability of equipment and weapons systems through coordinated training and procurement activities as well as other means undertaken by NATO and other allied countries.Note 147
In September 1994, Republican candidates for election to the U.S. House of Representatives issued a legislative plan, the Contract with America,Note 148 that contains a two-page "contract" indicating that the Republicans would introduce into the House a "National Security Restoration Act," which, in part, would be designed to "accelerate the expansion of NATO." The book spoke of renewing the U.S. commitment to a strong NATO by "urging the Clinton administration to proceed with full NATO partnership discussions with nations that are striving to embrace democracy, enact free market economic reforms, and place their armies under civilian control."Note 149 The book further indicated that the legislation would express the sense of Congress that Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia should be in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area no later than 10 January 1999, that the U.S. should assist these nations as they work toward NATO membership, and that other European countries should be invited to join NATO if they agree to contribute to NATO security. The book also said that the legislation would give the President authority to assist these four states and other European states working toward full NATO membership.Note 150
In January 1995, a bill that addresses NATO and NATO expansion was introduced into the House of Representatives by Republican leaders and others (appendix F).Note 151 The bill, H.R. 7, bears the short title, "National Security Revitalization Act." The bill states that one of its purposes is to "reemphasize the commitment of the United States to a strong and viable North Atlantic Treaty Organization." (See appendix F, Title VI, Sec. 602, Findings.)
The bill would amend the NATO Participation Act of 1994, specifically portions of Title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928. Among the more important amendments:
In mid-February, Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Secretary of Defense William J. Perry wrote a piece criticizing the National Security Revitalization Act, including Title VI "NATO Revitalization and Expansion Act." Regarding the NATO portion of the bill, they wrote,
That approach gives every new European democracy a strong incentive to consolidate reform. But if we arbitrarily lock in advantages now for some countries, we risk discouraging reformers in countries not named and fostering complacency in countries that are. Indeed, the effect of the measure before Congress could be instability in the very region whose security we seek to bolster.Note 153
Senator William S. Cohen in a speech to a conference in Munich, Germany, in early February 1995 claimed that the NATO expansion issue needs much more debate in the U.S.
He argued, "Stability is not a concept that is easy to sell. What we need is a thorough public debate, but in the United States it hasn't even begun." He stated that if a vote were to come up in the Senate now, "The answer today would be no. The public hasn't even started to think about what expansion would mean."Note 154
American Public. A Gallup/USA Today poll conducted in January 1994, just prior to the January NATO Summit meeting that agreed on the Partnership for Peace Program, reflected considerable support for allowing Central and East European states to join NATO.Note 155 The poll listed only seven CEE states; the results reflect general distinctions among the states. Gallup specifically raised the security guarantee issue and identified Russia as a possible threat in phrasing the question: "As you may know, NATO is committed to defending its members against a military attack by any other nation, including Russia. Which, if any, of the following countries do you think should be allowed to join NATO?"
Yes, Allowed No, Not NoOpinion,
to Join Allowed Depends
Poland 66% 18% 16%
Hungary 60 21 19
Romania 53 28 19
Czech Republic 52 28 20
Lithuania 51 25 24
Bulgaria 47 30 23
Albania 42 32 26
As for American support for NATO, polls of the American public in recent years have indicated relatively strong support for NATO and U.S. membership in it.
USIA has reported a number of interesting points about such polls, including:
Maintain NATO 61%
Strong opinion 33
Somewhat 28
Disband NATO 26
Somewhat 15
Strong opinion 11
Don't know 13
According to the January 1994 Gallup/USA Today poll,
70 percent of the American public believed that the "NATO
military alliance of Western Europe and the United States" should
be maintained (vs. 18 percent who said it was no longer
needed).Note 156A January 1994 American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)/The Washington Post poll indicated that 73 percent of Americans believed the United States should remain a member of the "NATO alliance between most of the Western European countries and the United States" (vs. 15 percent who said the United States should not remain a member of NATO).Note 157
In November 1993, the United States Information Agency (USIA) commissioned surveys in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom asking questions about extending security guarantees and using their own nation's troops to defend Central and Eastern Europe and admitting to NATO certain CEE states and Russia and Ukraine.Note 159 With respect to security guarantees, majorities in these West European states except for Germany believed that "NATO should provide a security guarantee to the countries of central and eastern Europe that is Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania to use NATO forces to defend them if they were to come under attack." The majorities ranged, by country polled, from 76 percent to 56 percent; in Germany, 45 percent said "yes" and 45 percent said "no." Somewhat similar majorities (generally 2-9 percentage points lower) also were willing to use their nation's troops to help NATO defend these CEE states (for Germany, 47 percent said "yes" and 47 percent said "no"). On admission to NATO, people were asked if they favored or opposed admitting into NATO eight specific Central and Eastern European States, Russia, and Ukraine. Averaging the results, individual Eastern countries received the following percentages of West European support for NATO membership: Poland, 63 percent; Hungary, 62 percent: Bulgaria, 54 percent; Czech Republic, 53 percent; Russia, 53 percent; Lithuania, 53 percent; Romania, 52 percent; Slovakia, 51 percent; Estonia, 50 percent; and Ukraine, 48 percent.
Polls commissioned by USIA in 1994 provided the following information on public opinion in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.Note 160 For Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, majorities ranging from 64 percent in Germany to 54 percent in both France and the U.K., believed that admitting Central and Eastern European states to NATO would benefit overall European security. The four Visegrad states and the three Baltic states received the greatest support for NATO membership, generally ranging between 78-60 percent of those polled. Majorities (74-58 percent) believed that Russia should be given the option to join NATO when it meets all qualifications.
Germany. In Germany, 64 percent of the public polled believed that admitting Central and East European states into NATO would benefit the overall security of Europe. Some 25 percent, however, believed NATO expansion would harm European security because it might overburden the Alliance and draw NATO into unwanted conflicts. Told to keep in mind that Germany must defend any NATO member that is attacked, the percentages favoring NATO membership for specific states were: Hungary, 78 percent; Czech Republic, Poland, the three Baltic states, and Slovakia, roughly 66 percent; Bulgaria, 55 percent;, Slovenia, 54 percent; and Romania, 46 percent (with 44 percent opposed). Some 58 percent of Germans favored giving Russia the option to join NATO when it meets established qualifications; 34 percent opposed. Those in the eastern laender were more favorably inclined than those in western Germany. (Compared to Germany, polls showed more support for Russian membership in NATO in Italy (65 percent), France (67 percent), and the United Kingdom (74 percent)). Germans were hesitant to defend CEE states so long as they were not members of NATO. Without NATO membership, only some 25 percent of Germans polled would grant security guarantees to the Visegrad four and the three Baltic states, and the figure was only 17 percent with respect to Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovenia.
France. In France, 54 percent of those polled believe admission of CEE states to NATO would benefit European security. About 30 percent believed expansion would be harmful. Reminded that France must defend any NATO member attacked, the percentages of those polled favoring membership for specific states were: Poland, 75 percent; Hungary, 70 percent; Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, and the three Baltic states, about 60 percent; and Slovenia, 55 percent. Those opposed ranged from 19 percent to 31 percent. Some 67 percent favored giving Russia the option to join NATO when it met all qualifications, while 27 percent were opposed.
The French were hesitant to defend CEE states so long as the were not members of NATO. Some 38 percent were willing to defend the Visegrad four, and 35 percent were willing to defend Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovenia.
United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, 54 percent of those polled believed admission of CEE states to NATO would benefit European security, while 27 percent believed it would be harmful by overburdening the Alliance and drawing it into unwanted conflicts.
Told to keep in mind that the United Kingdom must defend any NATO member attacked, the percentages of those polled favoring membership for specific states were: Poland, 75 percent; Hungary, 66 percent; Czech Republic, 62 percent; the three Baltic states, Bulgaria, and Romania, 57-60 percent; Slovakia, 55 percent; and Slovenia, 52 percent. Some 74 percent favored giving Russia the option to join NATO when it meets all qualifications.
The impact on NATO of adding new members would depend greatly on which states are admitted and how many states are admitted. Looking at the extremes, smaller states would likely be less influential and more willing to join a consensus in NATO on most issues. Large states, such as Russia, with a population nearly double that of Germany, armed forces larger than any other European state, and a history of influential foreign policy would likely change the political calculus in NATO; many have cautioned that membership would give Russia a veto in NATO.
NATO Secretary General Claes has suggested that one of the issues to be addressed in NATO's expansion study is whether or not the "principle of unanimity" should continue to apply with 22, 25, or 26 NATO members. He also suggested that another question to be addressed was how to preserve the credibility of nuclear guarantees. Another question was the costs of NATO expansion, with Claes saying, "I am not one of those who think that the expansion of NATO will not cost any money. It would be naive to think so. In order to preserve the credibility of Article Five, extra military and financial outlays are required from both old and new NATO member countries."Note 161
States that have consolidated democracies likely to endure, sustainable market economies, an in-place system of rule by law foreign policies reflecting respect for international law and mutual cooperation with neighbors and other states, and defensively oriented military doctrines and forces will likely enhance the Alliance. Admissions of states that do not have these characteristics, or states that, once admitted, lose these characteristics could pose serious problems for the Alliance and its cohesion.
NATO would likely want to avoid to the extent possible bringing into the Alliance territorial or ethnically based confrontations or conflicts. Such tensions might exist between two new members, a new member and an existing member, or a new member and a state not being asked to join NATO. If such tensions exist, NATO might want to carefully analyze the situation and seek as much assurance as possible that the tensions would be resolved or dealt with peacefully.
The number of states that might be asked to join NATO would also be an important variable. Again, at the extremes, for NATO to increase from 16 to 17 members would likely have little impact. Increasing NATO to the size of OSCE with 53 members more than tripling the size of NATO would create significant turmoil and disruption in NATO and require major changes in the way NATO now handles consultations, planning, and operations. There are major differences in preparing for and conducting not only NATO ministerial and other meetings with 16 member states, but also NACC meetings with 38, PFP meetings with 41, and OSCE meetings with 53 member states.
Depending on which states are admitted, there could be significant geostrategic implications for NATO, including new territory to defend or made available for planning defensive operations, forces to be brought into NATO's integrated military command, and bases and infrastructure that might be available or need to be supported.
As NATO conducts its study related to expansion, it will need to address many of these and other issues. NATO will likely need to consider the implications of expanding somewhere beyond 17 members but far short of the 53 members in OSCE and probably even far short of the 38 to 41 members in NACC and PFP, respectively. NATO will also need to address the impact of expanded membership on the NATO committee system and on the integrated NATO military command. There will be many difficult issues to address regarding force commitments, planning, command and control, infrastructure, standardization of strategies, doctrines, tactics and equipment, and deployments. NATO would want to avoid a division between what is done in Western Europe and what is done with new states from the East.
| Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Chapter2 Part 1(back) | Chapter2 continued(fwd) |