Unreal NATO Bucharest Summit

“NATO Summit A Distortion”
by Arthur I. Cyr
At the NATO summit in Bucharest Romania, irony is as plentiful as the endless receptions and receiving lines, toasts and tête-à-têtes – but considerably more subtle. An organization whose founding mission ended two decades ago continues to exist, erstwhile enemies are welcomed into the fold as friends, and formal allies use such events to stir discord rather than seek agreement.
The conference is being held in a nation which contributed to the massive military forces of the old Soviet bloc. NATO was created in 1949 to defend against that bloc, which soon after became formalized as well in the Warsaw Pact alliance.
The fall of the Berlin Wall, followed by all of the Soviet cardboard houses, represented undeniable strategic victory for the West. The end of the Cold War was also a great victory for the policy of restraint and deterrence, termed ‘Containment’, supported by every U.S. president from Truman through Reagan.
The Soviet empire is long gone, but NATO continues to exist and is expanding eastward. The originating threat ended almost two decades ago, but the transatlantic alliance meanwhile developed a life of its own. Bureaucracies never die voluntarily, and there is good justification for continued cooperation among militaries of states with broadly similar interests, which includes most west European states but few to the east.
But there is no uniform agreement on NATO’s role. This contrasts fundamentally with the Cold War years, when the alliance was held together with the brilliant simplicity of the doctrine that “an attack on one is an attack on all”.
Expanding alliance membership further east is favored by Washington. As the tough-talking guys of the Bush administration head toward the exit of history, the Bucharest summit provides an opportunity to flex muscles and poke opponents in the eye, at least rhetorically. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has reemerged publicly, stridently endorsing eastward expansion.
Russia is understandably alarmed by such proposals, and major west European governments are essentially opposed, though generally diplomatic. One current candidate for NATO membership is Ukraine. In blunt public statements, President Bush has emphatically supported having that nation in the alliance. Russia historically has been at odds with Ukraine, during both the Cold War and – especially - World War II.
This leads directly into the antidote for summit silliness, which is to focus on why nations form military alliances. Such structures reflect congruence of interests among states. Governments, past and present, refuse to surrender basic authority over military forces.
We have a demonstrable national interest in preserving stability in Russia, which controls vast natural resources and has active revolutionary groups, some sympathetic to al Qaeda. An unstable Russia would be directly dangerous for the U.S. as well as European nations. There is no comparable national interest in pressing NATO membership for Ukraine or for that matter other states.
Another vital ally is Turkey, a faithful NATO partner directly supportive of the U.S. in the First Gulf War, the Korean War, and generally in opposing Islamic extremism. The American invasion of Iraq, bitterly opposed by Turkey, has devastated our relationship with this close ally. Our leaders court strategically marginal states while alienating one of central importance.
The next American administration should give the highest priority to returning to a realistic foreign policy. Such an approach begins with understanding the true functions of military alliances.
Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu