Good Old Nato

Gerd Watzenig replies:

NATO needs to arrive in the 21st century before expanding in “enemy territory”

18.04.2008

Dear Ben,

Thank you for your letter, I received it and read it with great interest and greater amusement. It is a nice and well formulated approval that both the Ukraine and Georgia should join the NATO rather sooner than later. Your argumentation sounds solid and the call for the defence of “embryonic democracies “and “Western values” is very touching. But I was stunned by so much a quixotic approach. Let us bring things in order and see how things are rather than how they ought to be, shall we?

What is NATO? NATO is a military alliance and a tool for the collective self-defence of nations. At the time of its establishment in 1949, the Western world was concerned about its security and sought a vehicle to oppose the new threat in the east: the USSR. This happened rightfully so, as Stalin's ambitions to see soviet tanks at the Atlantic coast were known only too well. The sole purpose of the Atlantic Charter therefore is to oppose one enemy: the USSR and its allies. The enemy collapsed in 1989, the threat evaporated, but NATO remained unchanged and the organisation has been in a deep identity crises ever since. Whom to fight if there is no enemy? Yes, NATO is in Afghanistan and Kosovo as a soldier-for-hire but that only camouflages the fact that NATO does not know where it is going. Until this identity crisis is resolved, its old purpose remains and this purpose is to counterbalance (Soviet) Russia.
For the time being therefore Russia will perceive NATO for what it is, a military alliance posed against it. And why should it not? The last expansion brought the old enemy closer to its boarders, the new missile defence system can protect only against Russian missiles. A defence Russia cannot counter, thereby overthrowing the MAD principle. Russia is pushed and poked on the international scene where ever possible, sometimes rightfully so, sometimes not.

Russia too is in a crisis. The lost empire, the collapsed economy which only slowly recovers, the ruling of the country by a dubious political elite, the deteriorating armed forces, and many other internal problems lie heavy upon the shoulders of the Russian people. They are aware of the problems and challenges they have to face, but they are also aware that many of their problems are a result of the botched democratisation and economic reformation of the 1990s. A failed process the West greatly encouraged and is therefore not perceived as a friend. And the West keeps pushing, damaging its image with the Russian people even further. But even a weak Russian bear will bite if it is cornered.

The next question is, do we really want a country like Georgia to be in the NATO? This has nothing to do with the Georgian people but Georgia is anything but stable. Two of its provinces, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, declared themselves unilaterally independent in the 1990s. The people living there, many Russian from origin, are heavily dependent on Russian support to survive, which Russia is gladly providing. Georgia has not recognised the independence of the two provinces and neither has Russia. Too weary is she of similar problems within her own borders. But the newly independent Kosovo will cast its shadow there as well. A NATO membership does not offer solutions to an unsolved internal conflict but it will force Russia to an even more aggressive stand. If violence should brake out in within Georgia, than it is the obligation of the United Nations and not the job of an international mercenary to find a suitable solution.

The next point that NATO is not a cultural export centre. It is a military alliance, not more, not less. Trying to promote Western values through NATO is like promoting “don't drink and drive” while driving a tank under the influence. It is not very believable. Until NATO has not made up its mind, where it is going, extensions should not proceed, especially not if they are provoking the old “enemy”. NATO is still fighting a war, it has long won. But even a defeated foe will keep on fighting if the winner does not realise it has already won.