Lost without a MAP

The first in a series of letters between myself and my colleague, Gerd Watzenig, on the subject of NATO expansion, to be published in the forthcoming edition of the DA News Review. I'll post Gerd's response as and when I have it.

16/04/08

Dear Gerd,

Ukraine and Georgia are embryonic democracies whose future lies in the structures of the open world. Backed by the United States and many of NATO's Eastern European members, they hoped to be granted a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the recent NATO summit in Bucharest, but, after misgivings from Germany, France and Britain, they have had to be content with a promise of eventual membership and a commitment for foreign ministers to look again at MAP status in December. MAP would be the next stage of these countries' entry into NATO, obliging them to submit annual reports on democratic and military benchmarks. It would cement their fragile progress towards open democratic norms and be a guarantee against malign external interference in the affairs of their democratically elected governments, a boon not only for their people, but also for the open world as a whole. They should be granted MAP status without delay.

Let us not be coy here. It is time to bring the big brown bear lurking in the corners of the last paragraph centre stage. Russian pressure is the reason Ukraine and Georgia are not today the proud owners of a pair of MAP's; the reason that the powers of Western Europe, who protest that they must rub along with Russia as best as they can, felt compelled to insist upon delay. “The entry of Georgia and Ukraine...is not the right response to the balance of power in Europe and between Europe and Russia”, opined French Prime Minister Francis Fillon. “What is the rush?” asked a senior German official, loath to drag Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president-elect, into a fight with NATO even before he had taken office.

Spheres of influence undoubtedly exist in the world. But where they are asserted against the wishes of democratically-elected governments they should be opposed wherever practicably possible. We are no longer living in the 18th century, or indeed in the Cold War, and a putative balance of power should have no part in considerations concerning accession to a democratic-military club. Ukraine and Georgia should not be kept waiting for risk that they turn away from democratic reform. Russia's future too should undoubtedly lie in the structures of the open world. But delay this time around has sent Medvedev the message that pressure pays, and that Europe will buckle when Russia works its ursine charms. Better to grant both Ukraine and Georgia MAP status as soon as possible, and encourage Russia to pursue its legitimate interests in an open and transparent manner without the implicit threat of military force that keeping its neighbours out of a defensive military alliance entails.

It is easy to take for granted, from the comfort of Vienna, the stability, peace and progress which NATO membership for the former Eastern Bloc-countries who joined in 1999 and 2004 has brought Europe as a whole. If we wish to see our values entrenched we cannot be afraid to offend our partners, however valuable. The defence of the open world begins in Kiev and Tibilisi. May it one day extend to Moscow.

I look forward to hearing from you,
Yours truly,

Benedict J. White