NATO: In decline or on the rise?
Mike Tomasky has a piece up in favor of dissolving NATO. It follows up on the Presidents speech yesterday which embraced the idea of the post soviet states joining NATO, noting that if Georgia had been in NATO last summer "the US (and the UK) would in theory be committed to military intervention to defend two provinces in Georgia. That's nuts." And he's right, that is nuts - as nuts as Russia going to war with the US over two provinces of Georgia.
Unfortunately much of IR is a giant staring match. But as we learned in the Cuban missle crisis and afghanistan in the 1980's and countless other of the great powers chess boards, at the end of the day these things come down to not-batshit-crazy people and not mindless, rule following computers. Not to say nuclear annihilation couldn't happen as a result of poor human strategic judgement, just that I don't think that is more likely than it being touched off by a flock of geese or a rogue General.
That said, Tomasky makes the very useful comment that "What I'd rather see out of Obama is some bold thinking about the next generation of alliances." So here's my idea. But what if rather than dumping NATO that next "generation of alliances" was welcoming Russia into NATO? What if Obama had instead said:
For any country - including Russia, if it so chooses - to become a member of NATO, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; and they must be able to contribute to the alliance's mission.
Obviously such a radical proposal would require checking with the rest of the NATO member states, but such a carrot could potentially be a huge tool for fostering the democratic transition in Russia that seems to have stalled the last few years.
Posts
3 comments:
"For any country - including Russia, if it so chooses - to become a member of NATO, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; and they must be able to contribute to the alliance's mission."
I think much of the West (or should I say, ahem, the US) does not have a full and complete picture of just how imposing and "I-know-better-than-you" their comments or "suggestions" might appear to less powerful nations.
The remark is especially ineffective when we're dealing with a country like Russia, who wouldn't necessarily see joining NATO much more of a benefit to them than to the US (strategically and otherwise). If nothing else, following US terms to join NATO would show signs of weakness.
I wonder what the American response would be if Russia were the leading power in some alliance, and were contemplating the US's joining if certain conditions were met and "reforms" took place (Alas, the US is hardly a perfect country, even if it is ahead of most).
I imagine the US would say "well up yours Russia, why don't you take a look at your own country and your problems before you start commenting about ours."
Now, let's flip the players around, and there you have it.
The anti-imperialist critique is an interesting take on the proposal.
First, I think interpreting the US remarks as a paternalistic ultimatum is wrong.
From a technical perspective, those three items are exactly what needs to happen for a state to join the NATO alliance - first the government has to apply for membership (either following a referendum or parliamentary vote), then the current member states review and make a determination about the applicants ability to enhance the alliance, then NATO produces a membership action plan (which primarily has to do with military and other institutional reforms to ensure interoperability and that the country doesn't have a disorderly collapse that would be a huge headache to other member states), then once fulfilled the applicant is formally extended an offer to join.
More broadly, the literalism of the comments fits with Obama's overwhelmingly realist tone in his other speeches overseas.
The point about people choosing - particularly given the context of the original speech that I was using as the basis of my hypothetical - is less about the countries that want to join than about whether other non-NATO countries that want to prevent them (namely Russia) should have a say (according to Obama, they don't). But, the parts about reforms and contributions are I think an olive branch to Russia, to let them know we aren't just trying to grab up everyone around you. Membership is about meeting some basic standards, not just sharing a boarder with Russia.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that membership would only be a boon to the US. Rather it seems like an opportunity for both countries to recognize that the great power battles of the past half century are over and begin to institutionalize more positive sum relations. In pure economic terms it would potentially enable the Russians to significantly reduce military expenditures (and reprogram that money to more socially and economically productive uses) by giving them the ability to reduce force size WITHOUT appearing weak.
From an IR perspective, membership would also be another important seat at the global table to further cement their claim to being a great power. No one says "boy those Brits and French are real whimps because they are in NATO." Moreover, among member states, Russia would be the second largest force contributor, and have direct launching pads to most of the non-European theaters where NATO will be operating in the near term future, giving them the opportunity to play a significant leadership role in the alliance (after all, the core of NATO is much closer to Russia than the USA).
Also, I am not naive enough to think that it is something that could happen next week. If nothing else, the current outstanding issues in Chechnya and the Caucuses would make that impossible. But knowing the offer was out there would provide some incentive for them to start thinking about how to wrap those conflicts up. And while it may just be lip service, nonetheless the Russians have spent a great deal of effort the past decade trying to legitimize their fledgling democracy (both internally and externally). There are definitely concerns still, but they are undoubtedly far past say China in their embrace of democracy.
My critique was never about it being unfair that existing members of an organization or alliance put conditions on a potential new member. That, I think, is perfectly justified.
My problem is the broad approach with which the US deals with the rest of the world. AND coupled with the fact that Russia isn't one of those countries that you can either buy with monetary incentives, coerce with soft or hard influence, or simply dismiss or let go of the issue because they don't matter too much (relatively speaking).
Whether or not other countries in NATO or even Russia will like the idea of Russia's joining is obviously a different issue altogether. My point is that offers that come off as arrogant and right off the bat have a known low probability of acceptance may be perceived as an insult and would only hurt relations (especially, and I stress again, dealing with countries like Russia and probably China).
You also distorted some of what I actually wrote in the original comment, but that we'll deal with another time, ideally in the form of a fistfight :)
Post a Comment