Transatlantic Politics

Bucharest, Romania:  The final fronteer.

It was the first NATO summit where the US failed to get what it publicly asked for - granting Ukraine and Georgia a next step in the NATO-accession process, the so-called "Membership Action Plan" or MAP.  MAP does not mean automatic NATO membership and can take 5-10 years to complete because the requirements laid out in MAP are dependent on the reformist drive of the respective governments. In the battle over whether to grant MAP to Ukraine & Georgia, French President Sarkozy, whom Bush qualified as "the last reincarnation of Elvis", suddenly switched sides and joined the opposition led by German chancellor Angela Merkel, who was against MAP from the very beginning.

After bitter quarrels at a working dinner hosted by the Romanian president Traian Basescu, the leaders of Old Europe prevailed. Bush and Brown got a measly compromise - a second chance in December, when NATO foreign ministers could decide to give MAP to the two former Soviet countries. But German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier already qualified as "unconceivable" the prospects of changing his mind by December, when, in his view, there will only be a "first assessment". Followed by a second, third, etc. until Ukrainians and Georgians give up hope of ever joining NATO.

The real winner of the NATO summit in Bucharest was none other than Vladimir Putin. It was he who delivered the final speech on the last day of the summit, it was he whom Germany and France were thinking of as these two stalwarts of "Old Europe" fought to keep Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO. Self-confident and pleased that "our concerns were heard", Putin gave the audience at the Summit a condescending discourse which seemed as if the West was already at his disposal and he, the "Tsar of the Kremlin" didn’t feel the need to bully his loyal servants.  If the result of the NATO Summit are any indication, Putin was right.

During the closed-door NATO-Russia Council in Bucharest, Putin threatened the statehood of Ukraine in the event that it would become a NATO member.  Putin noted that "there are 17 millions Russians there" and that "Ukraine is a patchwork of territories from other states". But in the following press conference he refrained himself form directly attacking Ukraine or Georgia. The argument against NATO enlargement, in Putin’s public speech, was that "NATO is not a democratizer", but "a powerful military block whose appearance on our borders will be considered by Russia as a direct threat to our country’s security.

He also stressed that no threat - from terrorism to proliferation of WMD, from cyber attacks to energy - can be tackled without Russia. NATO was set up during the Cold War against an "evil empire" - the USSR - "but it remains to be seen who was right then", Putin said. That statement alone should set off alarm bells among military strategists and historians throughout the West. 

Putin also mentioned Iran and that, although Russia opposes a military nuclear program, it is "fully committed to honor its contractual obligations in terms of civilian technology and fuel for the civilian Iranian nuclear program".  No comment.

So what will be the future of NATO after Bucharest, after Russia got a veto right through its advocates in the NATO Alliance, especially Germany?

Hopefully Russia will make another mistake, the way it cut off gas to Ukraine in 2006 and let German consumers shiver. And hopefully we’ll have a strong leader in the White House next year. One who knows Russia from the Cold War and sees the new threat it has become. One who doesn’t look Putin or Medvedev in the eyes and thinks he has "seen into their soul", as George W. Bush famously stated after meeting with Putin. That would be the only hope for the transatlantic community. It cannot rely on a reincarnation of Elvis in France and a jello-like chancellor in Germany, too weak to break the will of her half-socialist, pro-Russian government. 

It is a sad indication of where the power truly lies in Europe when Bush and Sarkozy, both hawkish on foreign policy in general, are not able to secure the nomination of two former Soviet satellites to one of the most important military blocs in the world.  Perhaps, in the end, Putin smiles because he knows the truth:  Putin has also looked into the West’s eyes to see its soul and has found that the West is lacking both a soul and a backbone. 

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

U.S. Ambassador to Romania Nicholas Taubman recently spoke to a group in Atlanta, Georgia about investing in Romania.  An excerpt of his speech can be found below:

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

There is something about the Baltic states… something refreshing, inspiring and courageous.

Their recent history after the breakup of the Soviet Union is an economic success story with double-digit GDP growth rates. Estonia is the most high-tech society in Europe - with e-government & online voting - having earned the nickname "E-stonia".

Yet listening to the their three foreign ministers speaking about the 85 years of US-Baltic relations at the Heritage Foundation last Thursday, some differences do become obvious. Especially concerning their relationship with Russia.

The most pro-Russian stance was the Lithuanian one. Foreign Minister Petras Vaitiekunas, with a strong Russian accent, underlined several times that "Russia is not the USSR anymore, it differs profoundly" when the discussions were becoming too critical of Moscow. He also spoke of a "political brand of the three Baltic states", a brand that was not reflected in their very different views on Russia.

"We need Russia, so in our relationship, patience is the word" - Petras Vaitiekunas, Lithuanian Foreign Minister

Trying to strike a balance, the Latvian Foreign Minister Artis Pabriks first payed his tribute to the role of the US in the Baltic states' quest for freedom:

"All our achievements, in our economies, but also on a personal and professional level, could not have been accomplished if we weren't free countries. During the Soviet occupation, we used every opportunity to listen to Radio Free Europe, despite the Russian scrambling, and we really believed that one day we will be free countries." 

But talking about the Latvian relationship to Russia, Pabriks said that "this relationship shouldn't be a prisoner of the past".

Latvia just recently ratified a border-treaty with Russia, and the Foreign Minister proudly announced that his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov promised to visit Riga, Latvia's capital, soon.  Of the three Baltic states, Latvia should be considered the occupier of the middle ground with respect to how they view Russia.

A tougher stance came from Urmas Paet, the Estonian Foreign Minister, who was much more outspoken and than his Slavic counterparts.

"Russia is building up its foreign policy through confrontation with the US & EU, and through confrontations with its neighbors and the new democracies surrounding it." 

The recent row with Russia over the displacement of a Soviet statue and the following cyber-attacks against Estonian websites prompted the government in Tallinn, Estonia's capital, to take a firm stance against the Kremlin: Estonia successfully pushed to expand NATO powers onto the Internet.

"We experienced three weeks of cyber attacks, with 400 times greater traffic than normal, aimed to completely paralyze our country. The Internet has become the battlefield of the 21st century. It is possible to inflict serious damage in highly digitalized societies, just like a regular attack on conventional infrastructures", explained Paet.

The Estonian Foreign Minister requested that a "legal definition of cyber warefare" be formulated as soon as possible and announced the upcoming opening of a "cyber defense center" in Tallinn. 

Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs,  confirmed the fact that "NATO is already working on the technical cooperation"  regarding  "these unconventional threats: Using energy for political aims, cyber attacks or financial pressure", obviously alluding to Russia's new power policies.

"Russia's policy is to surround these countries, to encircle them. The EU is very many things, but certainly not a conquering imperialist force. And isn't it in Russia's best interest to be surrounded by democracies? Russia should have learned from its experience that it is not democracies who pose a threat, but totalitarian regimes and dictatorships." - Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

German Defense minister Franz Josef Jung pleaded for the US anti-missile defense shield Poland and the Czech Republic agreed to place on their territory, This decision caused sharp criticism from Russia and subsequently made the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, to propose "debating" and maybe limiting the national sovereignty of member states in this regard. But Jung expressed the view that facing new threats form "rogue states" (without naming them), the EU should act preventively, thus justifying the setting up of this defense shield: 

Mr Jung also alluded to Iran's announcement that it can develop uranium on an industrial scale. "Precisely these latest developments also confirm that such protection makes sense",Mr Jung said this week.

"Timely precautions must be taken against the foreseeable increase of the range of offensive missiles of certain problem states, even if it concerns long-term developments," he added.

Jung stressed the fact that the only way to "soothe" Russia's "worries" is to have a common voice within NATO and to back the argument that the shield is meant to PROTECT, not to ATTACK:

"I think it is good that in NATO, as with the NATO-Russia council, we are working together to assuage possible doubts".

Although Jung has voiced support for the US scheme, it is not a view that is universally backed within the German cabinet.

But he did insist it was important for the West "to work on a partnership basis with Russia" on the matter, he added.

Russia should be convinced of the argument so as "to reach an agreement for the protection of populations, for European populations in particular," he said.

Jung also told the European deputies that every possible diplomatic effort should be made "to prevent Iran from equipping itself with nuclear arms".

He added: "It is vital for world peace. The United States, Russia, Europe and China must work together."

President Putin had been very clear on one point, he continued. "It is also in Russia's interests that Iran does not possess atomic weapons."

On April 19, at NATO's Brussels headquarters, the 26 NATO allies — including 21 EU member states — will discuss the anti-missile system in the North Atlantic Council and then with Russia at a NATO-Russia meeting.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

There’s a witty editorial in the yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (requires subscription) about Angela Merkel’s totally softened policy-making. The title "Angela Schroeder" says it all, the current holder of the EU-presidency has actually more resemblance to her predecessor than to what she initially was supposed to stand for: closer US-German relations, stronger NATO involvement, "less government", cutting taxes, economic reform.

Upon assuming the presidency of the bloc in January, Ms. Merkel decided to use this rare opportunity to shape the Brussels agenda for six months to advance the softest of all soft policies: to revive the European Constitution.
(…)The EU’s real challenges are elsewhere: enlargement to the Balkans and Turkey, economic reform, the incomplete single market, terrorism, immigration, energy security to name only a few. Any of those would have proved more challenging for Ms. Merkel — and so much more beneficial for the EU.

Instead of immigration or energy security, Ms. Merkel has given in to the green obsession (despite her center-right orientation) currently so trendy in the EU: gas emission targets that are merely "PR gimmicks" - 20% by 2020 - when just 2 of the 15 old EU member states are on track to meet the Kyoto protocol. On issues like Iran, Merkel has also visibly given in to her Social-Democrat predecessors and members of cabinet. If one year ago, she was comparing Iran’s rhetoric to the Nazis, now she softened the tone and let her Foreign Minister and Schroeder’s former chief of staff do the talking. In Afghanistan, NATO is "fighting uphill" because of her refusal to move the 2700 troops out of the stable north to the more dangerous south.

The latest Merkel disappointment involves American plans to expand its missile defense shield. Poland and the Czech Republic are in talks with Washington to install radar and missile sites to better protect the U.S. and Europe against an Iranian missile attack. To stir up nationalist furies at home and pressure the Poles and Czechs, Vladimir Putin lashed out against the missile plan, knowing full well this limited system could never put a dent in Russia’s own nuclear threat. Germany’s foreign minister immediately rushed to the defense — of the Kremlin. Mr. Steinmeier accused the U.S. of supposedly failing to inform Russia about the missile plans.
Ms. Merkel could have set her foreign minister straight for resuscitating the Schröder-style coddling of Moscow. But she, who grew up in East Germany, only seconded him. Ahead of a trip to Warsaw last week, the chancellor said, "We, and I will say it in Poland, prefer a solution within NATO and also an open discussion with Russia about it." The Germans aren’t so concerned with NATO cohesion in Afghanistan. In this case, the countries directly involved are the ones to decide.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!