After the August war between Georgia and Russia, after the flames of burned towns and super-heated rhetoric died down, it became apparent that Georgia had provoked the war, and Russia accepted the provocation. Certainly Russia could have displayed restraint and it did not, but in the particular instance of this war in their raw history, Georgia was not blameless, and instigated the war.
During our recent political campaign, John McCain made a great issue about Russia's design on Ukraine and Georgia and what it would mean for the West. It struck me that his passionate discourse was the result of deep conviction, in fact an area of policy that seemed fully formed in his mind. On the other hand, I was not convinced that he could show restraint and international leadership in devising a solution. His position seems now to represent one plank of an administration agenda that has come into play this week in NATO.
The United States and other NATO countries in the past designed a joint Membership Action Plan (MAP) that lays out the circumstances in which a country may join NATO. A country seeking to join is first admitted by the NATO countries to the MAP, a plan for eventual membership that requires a country to separate its civilian and military powers, reform the armed forces, and demonstrate transparency in government command and in intelligence services.
Just in April, in delicate negotiations among the NATO countries, the U.S. compromised its strong desire that Georgia and Ukraine be invited to join the MAP. Western European NATO countries opposed the plan for a number of reasons including Russia's insistence against NATO membership for countries it claimed vital to its national interest.
A compromise was reached in which it was agreed that at some point the countries would be invited to join, but the time was not yet to invite them to the MAP, which would pave the way for membership. Now it turns out that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, in advance of next month's meeting of the NATO alliance, has been pushing strongly, not just for their admittance to a MAP, but for full membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Again, the Western European NATO members oppose this.
I must quote journalist Judy Dempsey, who states in the Nov. 26 edition of the International Herald Tribune, that,
"Rice's intervention, however, changes the dynamics, undermining what was agreed upon ... as well as the entire NATO entry process, diplomats said.
"If you get rid of the Membership Action Plan, it sets a very dangerous precedent," said another NATO diplomat, "Once you skip the filtering process of MAP, then you are going down the slippery slope to the right to join NATO."
Why now, just weeks before the end of a disrespected administration that has wrecked havoc in the world, would Secretary Rice feel compelled to attempt to jam through a proposal that is certain to fail? What is there to gain by the outgoing administration's insistence that NATO bypass its deliberative process that in itself could assure success for its alliance? I would like to know.
Recent Comments