Post by kalmenasThis discussion is off to the usual repetetive
(and uninteresting) string of insults.
The point of that was to demonistate that automatic, knee-jerk, falling back
on the stereotype that "Russia is the enemy of NATO."
To state that Russia is the enmey of NATO is to cling to Cold War thinking
and stereotypes. This can also religate our NATO Alliance to the Cold War
past. Those of us who are NATO supporters should be working on removing the
old stereotypes that "Russia is the enemy of NATO." Those of us who support
NATO should be insulted by the notions on this newsgroup that "Russia is the
enemy of NATO." It was Soviet communism - not Russians as people - that was
the Cold War enemy of NATO. Also offensive to myself as a NATO supporter are
the anti-Russian notions attacked to what is "pro-NATO" on this newsgroup!
Also - NATO is not "anti-" anything and our NATO does not seek to define any
group or nation as "the enemy." Currently, al-Qaeda and international
terrorism is the "enemy," and this is due to the attack on the US on
September 11, 2001 and the invocation of Article Five from the terrorist
attack. Musilms, like Russians, are not the "enemies of NATO." NATO does
not keep "an enemy list," and this is relected in the positive-oriented
statement from the North Atlantic Treaty itself "...their desire to live in
peace with all peoples and all governments" and the intent of Article One.
Post by kalmenasLets get back a little to realism. La Porte
in his first post outlined the theoretical requirements for
Russia to be accepted, it must show that it shares
'common values'. That is democracy, respect for the
individual and rule of law, protection of minorities.
Can Russia achieve this? Theoretically yes,
there are those in this post who will argue vehemently
no.
Even the two main proponents of Russian NATO membership (Ira Straus and Mark
Kramer) agree that Russia has a long way to go, but that does not mean that
it is hopeless to work toward that goal. From the excerpt from my paper, I
demonstrate that the idea of Russian NATO membership, like that of Germany
in the early 1950's is not a fringe idea. Yes - Russia has a way to go - but
it should be encouraged to drop the Cold War stereotypes (as they should in
other Eastern European countries) and work toward NATO membership.
But that NATO, as well as Russia, should work on getting there. In case you
do not know, the relations between Russia and NATO are actually very
excellent. The Russia-NATO Council is part of the evolution that will
eventually lead to Russia as a full NATO member - no matter how long that
takes. It close to 50 years to defeat Soviet communism and liberate Eastern
Europe, including the liberation of the Russian people from communism.
Post by kalmenasI personally hope that Russia at least will move
in that direction. To the great benefit of Russians and its
neighbors, however, it will not get it into NATO.
NATO is an association protecting the teritorial
integrity of its members. First and formost. Everything
else is window dressing.
What would keep Russia out of NATO when it qualifies for membership? The
need to cling to Cold War stereotypes?
There is nothing that would keep Russia from becoming a NATO member when it
qualifies!
The truth is that Russia as a NATO member, as well as Serbia, is the future
of the NATO Alliance. The past that our Alliance is leaving behind is
"Russia as the enemy of NATO." With each new instrument and policy
innovation in the NATO- Russia relationship draws Russia to eventual NATO
membership...
Even the statements from NATO/Western leaders indicate that NATO membership
for Russia IS NOT out of the question!
Again from from former SecGen Lord Robertson:
"NATO is open for Russia as well, and Russia can submit an application form.
There are no fundamental obstacles in the way for Russia joining NATO. It is
up to Russia to apply or not apply for membership. And if Russia is ready to
meet the standards...it can join the alliance" -- Lord George Robertson.
"NATO chief says no obstacles in way of Russia's membership of alliance."
Financial Times/BBC Monitoring. December 9th, 2002.
Post by kalmenasConsider - Russia has a border of ~4000 km with
China, ~3000 km with Moslim nations. (Let the
geographers correct this, a few thousand km won't change
the picture),
Will the existing members take upon themselves the
burden to protect such borders? Will they willingly a) reduce
their own level of protection b) greatly increase defense
costs if the level is to be maintained?
As Ira Straus presents in his paper, the moving of NATO boarders to China
would have the same effect of extending NATO's boarders to Mexico. "Russia
in NATO: The Fourth Generation of the Atlantic Alliance." December 1994.
Available from http://www.fas.org/man/nato/ceern/rus_in.htm
Actually - extending NATO boarders to China would be politically better that
just along the boarders between the Baltics and Russia, which is now having
the effect of bringing the Cold War back our NATO Alliance! This is also
causing Eastern Europeans to redefine NATO (incorrectly) as an
"anti-Russian" alliance, which it is not. To start the Cold War up along the
boarder between the Baltics and Russia is counterproductive and can distract
our Alliance form REAL threats from terrorism.
The fact that NATO survives, despite alliance theory, is a first. That is
due to the fact that NATO is not just a millitary alliance, but an alliance
of democracies based on more than just arms, armies and military defense.
Excerpt from "Putting the Cold War Ghosts to rest - an argument IN FAVOR of
Russian NATO membership."
http://transatlantic.security.pronato.com/Russia-NATO/Russian.NATO.membership1.htm
After a year of existence, Russia-NATO Council was touted in the Russian
newspapers as a very substantial high mark in Russian-NATO relations, but
more cooperation needs to be undertaken. The Secretary-General of NATO, Lord
Robertson called the achievements of the RNC "very substantial" in the areas
of assessment of terrorist threats and cooperation on a theatre anti-missile
defense system (Agency WPS, 16 May 2003). The NRC replaced the Permanent
Joint Council (PJC) that was designed to keep Russia at a "safe distance."
The PJC was a forum to inform Russia of agreements that the Allies arrived
at in advance and lacked a spirit of cooperation between Russia and NATO of
this new Russia-NATO Council (Fritch 2002). Now, a frequently used phrase
from President Bush is that Russia is now America's "friend and ally" in
especially the war on terrorism and in the aftermath of the September 11
attacks on America - and NATO - new spirit of cooperation was noted through
shared intelligence and aid in Afghanistan. (Lansford 2002). An added bonus
of the Russia-NATO Council was the softening of the Russian position toward
NATO enlargement and less of the perceived need by NATO members that the
Russian "concerns and fears" (Baltic News Service, 5 July 2002) needed
"management." The NRC was described a two-way street in the NATO-Russia
relationship and thus far is describe as a success in Russia - NATO
cooperation.
The Bush Administration remained non-committal to the promise of full NATO
membership for Russia. However, after the September 11 terrorist attacks a
new, deeper level of cooperation followed between NATO and Russia. White
House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated that the deeper relationship was not
the administration's endorsement of NATO membership for Russia. Fleischer
stated that the new Russia-NATO Council was a major step toward "integrating
Russia with the European-Atlantic community of nations and this is a garden
that will be watered and now will grow" (Associated Press, 15 May 2002). The
relationship between Russia and NATO has been a "garden that has been
growing" since the end of the Cold War.
If the US were to press toward a goal of NATO enlargement to include Russia,
the first step would have to be directed toward the former Soviet block
countries, especially the Baltics. They would have to overcome their
suspicions in their aversion to a closer relationship with Russia. What need
to be worked out and over come are the persistent notions of "imperialist
Russia," which do have some historical truth to them (O'Sullivan 2003). NATO
membership could be used as a vehicle to facilitate and instill trust
between the Baltic states and Russia. A NATO that includes Russia would help
reign in the real or perceived Russian penchant for "imperialist Russia."
The facilitation of cooperation would be productive in putting Russia's
imperialist past behind it, just as NATO membership is now used to gain
trust and cooperation between Greece and Turkey. And the lack of wars in
Europe and the integration of Germany back into Europe have been credited to
the NATO Alliance (Kay 1998). And - what would keep a new and deep
relationship of respect and dignity between Russia and its former "Yalta
clients" through the North Atlantic Council from developing?
According to David Yost (1998), the officially stated goals for countries to
strive for NATO membership - stabilization and democratization - have no
grounds for excluding Russia. NATO expansion that locks out Russia would be
seen by most Russians as a national humiliation, incite nationalism and
appear to confine and isolate Russia. While he was Secretary-General of
NATO, Javier Solana stated that to make NATO a "closed shop" would confine,
without hope of integrating into the anchor of the West and would "imprison
those countries to their pasts" and "it would rob them of the best means of
moving them forward" (Yost 1998, 146). A Russia eternally excluded from NATO
would also imprison NATO in the Cold War past, as well as redraw lines
across Eastern Europe.
References in excerpt:
Agency WPS. "Russia and NATO - Antagonists or Partners?" 16 May 2003.
Fritch, Paul. "Analysis: New Beginnings." NATO Review. Summer 2002.
Baltic News Service. "US Senator: Improved Russia-NATO relations have
softened Moscow's stance on NATO enlargement." 5 July 2002.
O'Sullivan, John. "The Great Game in Europe: How the US can play." National
Review. 24 February 2003, Vol. 55, Issue 3.
Yost, David S. NATO Transformed The Alliance's New Roles in International
Security. United States Institute of Peace: Washington, D.C., 1998.
Kay, Sean. NATO and the Future of European Security. Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers: Boston, MA, 1998.
Gedda, George. "U.S. welcomes closer Russian ties with NATO but holds back
on promising full membership." Associated Press, 15 May 2002.
Lansford, Tom. 2002. All for One: Terrorism, NATO and the United States.
Ashgate Publications Company: Burlington, VT.