Transatlantic Politics

Condoleezza Rice spoke yesterday at a press briefing before travelling to Paris and Tbilisi about the importance to grant Georgia the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP), an intermediate stage before granting full membership of the Alliance.

One of the reasons for NATO Membership Action Plan and, ultimately, for NATO membership, is that it allows states to overcome longstanding difficulties, differences and conflicts under the umbrella of a collective security organization, defense organization of democracies. I have noted before that had anyone said that you would be able to resolve, for instance, differences between Hungary and Romania, between Bulgaria and Turkey in peaceful ways — no one would have believed it when the Soviet empire broke up. But in fact, under the umbrella of NATO, that has been taking place.
 
And so if you now look across Central and Eastern Europe, one thing that is also very different from just a few decades ago is that the countries that were liberated after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Baltic states and the aspirants – Albania, Croatia, Macedonia and others are now – have made the transition and are making the transition into transatlantic institutions. That allows them both to resolve their differences and to have a reason, a spur, for internal reform and further democratization, the appropriate relationship between civilian and military leaders and so forth and so on. 

That is why Membership Action Plan has been so valuable, and it’s why the United States continues to stand for Membership Action Plan for Georgia and Ukraine.

She also fiercly condemned Russia’s military invasion beyond the South Ossetian borders and alluded to banning Russia from international organizations such as the WTO, the G8 and the OECD.

When you start bombing ports and threatening to bomb airfields and bombing a city like Gori and bringing troops in a flanking maneuver on the western flank of Georgia and tying up the main roads between Georgia – between Tbilisi and Gori, that’s well beyond anything that is needed to protect Russian peacekeepers. And that is why Russia is starting to face international condemnation for what it is doing.

 
This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbors, occupy a capital, overthrow a government, and get away with it. Things have changed.

Meanwhile, a common naval exercise between Russia, US, France and UK in the Pacific was cancelled, and NATO refused the participation of a Russian vessel in common maneuvres in the Mediterranean. But are these gestures enough to protect Georgia from a brutal takeover by Russia?

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

While the West’s leaders enjoy the gigantic-Mao-style Olympic show in Beijing, Russia is sending armoured vehicles and bombing Georgia.
The breakaway region of South Ossetia, a mere "post stamp" in terms of territory and capabilities (but backed by Moscow), has been constantly attacking Georgian civilians and peace-keeping troops in the region. After a last offer of ceasefire which was again violated by the Ossetians, the Georgian army got the green light to enter the breakaway region and regain control over it.

Only a few hours after, 3 Russian planes entered the Georgian airspace and dropped bombs onto Georgian soil. Moscow denies this but has acknowledged sending about 150 armoured vehicles into South Ossetia (see picture), allegedly in order to "protect" its Russian citizens (about 90% of the Ossetians have Russian passports).

In a CNN interview, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili was asked whether Georgia and Russia were now at war:

"My country is in self-defense against Russian aggression. Russian troops invaded Georgia."

"All day today, they’ve been bombing Georgia from numerous warplanes and specifically targeting (the) civilian population, and we have scores of wounded and dead among (the) civilian population all around the country. This is the worst nightmare one can encounter."

Saakashvili also said it was in the United States’ interest to help his country.

"It’s not about Georgia anymore. It’s about America, its values. We are a freedom-loving nation that is right now under attack."

 The West should not abandon Georgia AGAIN, as it did in April during the Bucharest NATO summit, when the young democracy was not granted the coveted NATO candidate country status (see A NATO summit for Putin for more information).

Backing Russia (or even standing idly by) would be a huge mistake.

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

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. 

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:

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

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