NATO-EU Conflict Flares Up as Russia Enters
the Game
Russia, Not the U.S., Holds the Key
16 December 2000
Up until now, it was just 'friendly input'.
Last Wednesday, 13 December, it officially turned into a
'warning'. Through
the loud-mouth lips of U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright, the U.S. made it absolutely clear that it does
not desire to see the creation of a unified European defense
force that would function independently of NATO. "The
United States will stay in Europe", Albright said, and
will not allow for NATO to become a "relic of history
[...]. The stakes", she continued, "are simply
too high". Evidently, Ms. Albright sees little, if any,
open space for negotiation on this issue.
And yet, things
were rolling fine up until the end of November. At that time,
U.S. President Bill Clinton even Okayed an
article written by British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and
published in the British Sunday newspaper The Observer. The
article, which supported the European defense force, stated
that "[t]here is no room for complacency. European forces
must become more mobile, deployable and sustainable. They
must improve their lift, logistics and intelligence capacities".
But
things changed almost overnight. Later on that week, the
Russians, too, entered the game, offering the European
defense force their full backing and even unconditional military
assistance. The Americans didn't expect that, but it came
as no surprise to the Europeans. A few weeks earlier, on
October 28th, Russian President Vladimir Putin had arrived
in Paris for a 4-day visit, officially described as an "E.U.-Russia
summit". It was during that summit when the Russians
gave their personal and overwhelming support to France's
plan for a European defense force that would act independently
of NATO and, more importantly, the U.S. The diplomatic significance
of that support was so stunning, that the French spent most
of the 4 days discussing with the Russians the details of
a European defense force. Even the Chechen problem, which
has been dominating almost all high-level meetings between
the Russian and Western officials in recent years, was pushed
aside. French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine told journalists
that "Chechnya's fate was not the central subject of
the visit". During the meetings, numerous comments were
made to the French press stressing the strategic importance
of Russia for the future of Europe. The director of the French
Institute of International Relations, Thierry de Montbrial,
characteristically declared that "Europe and Russia
are geographically inseparable [...]. Russia is a threat
to us now because of its weakness and no longer because of
its force. It's in our interest for Russia to get back on
its feet".
To make things worse for the Americans, during
the recent E.U. summit in Nice, France, the countries that
had been
commissioned by Albright to propose a more NATO/U.S.-friendly
European defense force (Britain and, to a lesser extent,
Germany) found themselves with their backs against the
wall. With virtually no exception, all other E.U. member
states
supported France's proposition of a European defense force
that will operate within Europe as it sees fit, thus significantly
marginalizing U.S./NATO impact on military decision-making.
On
the surface, the anti-American inclination of E.U. member
states would appear to be connected to the traumatic experience
of NATO's bombardment of Yugoslavia. The Americans are
indeed NATO allies, but nobody in Western Europe (including
the
majority of Blair's U.K. government) feels really comfortable
with the increasing American military build-up in the Balkans.
A quick look at Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo (let alone
Greece, Turkey, Germany and the occasional naval fleets)
shows that
Europe is experiencing the largest U.S. military presence
since the end of WWII. This is seen by many (France included)
as unacceptable, especially at a time when the Americans
are already considering a large-scale military withdrawal
from southeast Asia due to increasing Chinese, Korean and
Japanese objections. Indeed, some of this tension between
E.U. and U.S./NATO has plainly to do with turf wars: South
and Central America is the backyard of the U.S., while
Europe has traditionally been the territory of European bullies.
That's the way it has been for centuries and that is what
many in the E.U. wish to see return.
Yet, the reasons behind
this E.U./NATO conflict go deeper than that. It is multiply
important for the E.U. (and France
has made that absolutely clear) to be able to achieve unified
administrative control which would have a security-oriented
psychological effect on its subject populations. In other
words, the E.U. community must be able to feel safe, strong
and secure within its borders. If that is not achieved,
then the E.U. will remain peripheral to U.S.-led global developments;
it will be unable to seriously challenge U.S. global policy
when it needs to most, i.e. when it finds itself in disagreement
with the political, financial and military blueprints of
American dominance. As a large-scale multinational institution,
the E.U. was not designed to operate in an uni-polar global
environment. There, the possibilities for flexible policy
combinations would be, and in fact are, hampered by the
machinations
of a sole superpower, be it capitalist or communist.
Considering
the above, it is important to stress that the timing of
the E.U. defense debate is anything but coincidental. The
leadership
of the U.S. foreign policy and intelligence apparatus has
been partially distracted with electoral developments at
home, while China and, especially, Russia are both re-emerging
as strong and defiant global policy leaders. This is characteristically
illustrated by the dramatic Russian-led near-collapse of
sanctions against Iraq, which has been occurring throughout
the past 6 weeks.
The E.U. wants in on the big game and it
is not alone. Russia wants in, too. And, more importantly,
both want it bad enough
to tolerate each other in a military alliance outside the
realm of U.S.-dominated NATO. Only a few days ago, in a speech
that no U.S. media even dared to report, Russian Foreign
Ministry Spokesman Aleksander Yakovenko told journalists
that "Russia attaches great significance to cooperation
with the European Union. We hope that the reforms taking
place in both Russia and the E.U. will promote our further
rapprochement and the development of a strategic partnership,
the formation of a true multi-polar world order".
And
he's not kidding. Already, European countries that have benefited
most from American favorable bias throughout the
postwar period are feeling uncomfortable just by considering
the political prospects of an autonomous European defense
force. On December 14th, Turkey (a full member of NATO) decided
to block the advancement of the E.U.'s defense plans by denying
NATO-controlled logistical and military support to any future
operations of such a force. The reason, according to Turkish
military officials, was that "Ankara fears that the
E.U. force could become involved in areas where Turkey has
interests, such as Cyprus or the Balkans". And they're
not kidding either: what would Turkey do in Cyprus and the
Aegean, and even in Iraq and Kurdistan, without American
diplomatic and military support for its systematic human
rights and international law abuses?
The situation is getting
increasingly tense and the effect of Russian involvement
makes things even more volatile. Even
if the French, who are currently presiding over the E.U.,
fail to have their plans for a European defense force realized,
then the Swedes, who are about to take the E.U. presidency
over from the French, will manage to do so. If anything,
the Swedes are even more favorable to the idea of an independent
European defense force than are the French. The sole remaining
path for the Americans is to try to persuade Russia that
it will stand to lose more than it will gain by supporting
the defense visions of the E.U. But this will be anything
but easy for George W. Bush's new administration.
Time will
show. Yet, no matter what happens, one thing is certain:
the path to resolution, or to conflict, passes once
again right through the middle of downtown Moscow.
© The
News Insider 2000
Copyright notice
The use of the editorials published
on this site is free, as long as News Insider is notified
and referred to as
the source of the information
cited. We believe in the free sharing of information, but we do
not encourage plagiarism. If our editorials are of use to
you, please
contact us to let us know. Thank you for your cooperation.
|
