Tweet
Cold War shivers
Eric Walberg
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Dec 24, 2008, 00:22
2008 will be remembered as a turning point in Russia's relations with
the West. It was a tumultuous year, with Kosovo, missiles in Europe
and NATO's seemingly relentless march eastward like thunderclouds
gathering on Russia's horizon, which finally burst 8 August over
South Ossetia, bringing tragedy to Georgians, triumph and tragedy to
Ossetians and Russians, as the Russian army stopped short of Tbilisi
in their defence of the plucky Ossetians.
Poland, in a tizzy, quickly signed up for US Patriot missiles; the EU
and NATO, in a snit, suspended relations with Russia and did their
best to undermine Russia's fragile economy. US Secretary of Defence
Robert Gates made a grand tour of countries supposedly threatened by
Russia (in addition to visiting his new friends in Kosovo), though
only the woebegone Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili bothered
meeting him at the airport. This darling of the West -- and Israel --
suddenly found himself friendless after his disastrous altercation
with his neighbour. Even Israel pulled in its horns, cutting off its
lucrative arms sales out of fear of Russia.
Little more than a month later, the storm clouds over Russia seem
to have dispersed. Europe again began improving relations, with a
Euro-Russia summit in November, followed by renewed negotiations on
a strateg ic partnership and a renewal of Russian-NATO dialogue in
December. The Bush administration was not amused, but then lame-duck
President George W Bush has about as many friends these days as
Saakashvili.
It was amusing watching NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
jumping through hoops, so to speak, in early December after a NATO
foreign ministers meeting, as he explained the alliance's decision
to begin "a conditional and graduated re-engagement" with Moscow,
despite strident disapproval from Washington, not to mention Moscow's
own strident disapproval of NATO moves to absorb Ukraine and Georgia,
and after its spectacular assertion of authority in its "near
abroad" with the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia
and Abhazia. The Hoop argued, "Russia is such an important factor
in geopolitical terms that there is no alternative for NATO than to
engage Russia." He innocently claimed he had no idea why Russia felt
"victimised, not to be taken seriously, but if that is the perception,
we have to discuss it, because I have to try to convince them that
democracy and the rule of law are coming closer to Russia's borders --
why should that be a problem?"
As if he actually believes that NATO is about the tired clichés of
democracy and freedom that are used to justify this Cold War relic, and
not about US empire and its attempt to end a ny residual opposition,
especially in the oil-rich Eurasian space, which Russia just happens
to control.
So why the sudden courtship of the Russian ogre? De Hoop said it was
because of Afghanistan, fighting terrorism and narcotics. We could
add the financial crisis as well. But towering over even that is the
very frightening spectre of another arms race between the two -- yes
two -- superpowers which Europe is uncomfortably sandwiched between.
It's as if Don Juan realised too late that his latest flame -- his
true love this time -- was wise to him and had decided the jig was
up. Defying the US, de Hoop Scheffer and his Euro diplos realised
their place was the tried and true middle path between the two big
guys. He did his best to pretend that nothing really was wrong,
but no one was fooled. "I'm basically an engager," de Hoop Scheffer
said. "But engagement can't take place in the context of spheres of
influence. We have to see if Georgia is a watershed or not. I hope
not, and I'll do my best that it will not be." Sorry, de Hoop. You
closed the barn door too late. Your beloved has bolted.
The emissary of the spurned lover, Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitri
Rogozin, welcomed the decision to resume informal talks with Russia,
saying, with not a little sarcasm, "I personally do not see the
difference between formal and informal sittings, exce pt that you
don't have coffee in an informal meeting but you still can order
one." Rogozin also said that the decision not to give a formal action
plan to Georgia and Ukraine showed that relations with Russia were
more important to NATO than either applicant. He predicted that NATO
would retreat from admitting Georgia and Ukraine, a prospect that
"does not cheer anyone in the alliance." Rogozin said that "there is
an open split within NATO, and it will widen if NATO tries to expand
further. The schemes of those who adopted a frozen approach to Russia
have been destroyed." Words that left Don Juan apoplectic. The Hoop
shot back that Rogozin could say what he liked, and American officials
dismissed his comments as bluster aimed at a domestic audience.
Upping the ante, in the NATO meeting's final communiqué, which
went through 22 drafts, the foreign ministers gave their unanimous
support to the planned deployment in Europe of US missile defenses,
which Washington continues to say are for protection from Iran, not
Russia. Reading from a script retrieved from history's dustbin, the
ministers called the missile system "a substantial contribution" to
defense and encouraged Russia to take up US proposals for cooperation
on missile defence, oblivious to US president-elect Obama's own
scepticism about the system, or the comments last month by French
President Nicolas Sarkozy that the missile defense would "bring
nothing to security" but "would complicate things and make them move
backward," or Russia's threat to install short-range missiles of its
own in Kaliningrad.
As for Russian President Dmitri Medvedev's proposed talks on a new
"security architecture" for Europe -- which Sarkozy agreed to in
November -- de Hoop Scheffer said that NATO members were "quite happy
with the security structure as it exists in Europe. There is not a
shimmer of a chance that NATO could or would be negotiated away." The
Euro fans of America and foes of Russia see the Russian president's
proposals as a direct attempt to undermine NATO. And so what? The
only way to make peace with Russia is to do what should have been
done 17 years ago, when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded: dismantle
its twin and build a European partnership from the Atlantic to the
Pacific, minus the US and Canada. There is something called the
United Nations where everyone can get together. The EU and Russia
are already working together on peacekeeping -- through the UN --
as seen with the current EUFOR mission in Chad, which includes 320
Russians. I repeat: Who needs NATO to police the world?
De Hoop drew his line in the sand at a news conference with Georgian
Foreign Minister Eka Tkeshelashvili. She expressed satisfaction with
the outcome of the meeting, in which ministers reconfirmed that Georgia
and Ukraine would eventually become members of NATO and said NATO
would accelerate cooperative reform programmes with both countries
through existing NATO commissions. Don't hold your breath, Eka. A lot
can happen between now and "eventually." The US and Germany are at odds
over how further expansion of NATO can proceed, with Germany insisting
on a MAP (Membership Action Plan) and Bush's team arguing that "MAP
has been fetishised." Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried said that this "is not the only way to
get there," wherever "there" is. Instead of a MAP, he has in mind
the NATO-Georgia Commission established hurriedly after 8 August,
modeled after the NATO-Ukraine Commission established in 1997 --
"MAP without MAP," as the German fetishists drolly put it.
But the bottom line on Georgia is that it can't join NATO if it is not
at peace with its neighbours, as this would oblige NATO to go to war
to "defend" it. This argument could even encourage Russia to make a
move on Crimea, putting Ukraine in the same predicament, making it,
too, ineligible. How ironic this would be, given NATO's pretensions
to be a bastion of peace.
As the Hoop performed his verbal acrobatics, the EU was performing its
own highwire act with Russia, renewing negotiations on a new strategic
partnership. But with a nod to US desires to keep moving eastward come
hell or high water, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso
also outlined to the press the EU's proposed new "Eastern Partnership"
with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus,
the latest move into the ex-Soviet bloc since the EU expanded in 2004
and 2007 to embrace the Baltics and all the former Warsaw Pact nations.
The partnership offers free trade deals, closer energy ties, easier
access to visas and financial assistance programmes worth a total
of 600 EUR million over two years. To their bitter disappointment,
EU-member hopefuls Ukraine and Moldova were lumped together with the
others, indicating that their applications were on hol
Interesting, the supposed rush to get Ukraine and Georgia into NATO
and the procrastination over them joining the much more important
economic organisation. The Eastern Partnership was a response to
Sarkozy's Mediterranean Union, bringing all the Mediterranean countries
together with the EU in a loose economic club, and was put on fast
track after the war in Georgia in August. Barroso denied suggestions
that the EU was seeking to establish itself as an alternative power
centre to Moscow. "The Cold War is over," said Barroso, "and where
there is no Cold War, there should be no spheres of interest." Who
does he think he's kidding?
But Russia has no beef with EU expansion, which can only benefit Moscow
in the long run. In fact, it is not inconceivable that Russia itself
could join this economic pact, which clearly benefits one and all,
at least economically. This cannot be said of NATO. De Hoop Scheffer
understandably wants to keep his prestige (and pension), but this is
one endangered species that deserves extinction.
As NATO prepares the fireworks for its big 60th anniversary, its plans
for Georgia and Ukraine are in disarray and its war in Afghanistan
is a nightmare which could tear the organisation apart in 2009. Happy
anniversary.
--Boundary_(ID_KHbO8LQNMRj3P4o LvTkEfA)--
Eric Walberg
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Dec 24, 2008, 00:22
2008 will be remembered as a turning point in Russia's relations with
the West. It was a tumultuous year, with Kosovo, missiles in Europe
and NATO's seemingly relentless march eastward like thunderclouds
gathering on Russia's horizon, which finally burst 8 August over
South Ossetia, bringing tragedy to Georgians, triumph and tragedy to
Ossetians and Russians, as the Russian army stopped short of Tbilisi
in their defence of the plucky Ossetians.
Poland, in a tizzy, quickly signed up for US Patriot missiles; the EU
and NATO, in a snit, suspended relations with Russia and did their
best to undermine Russia's fragile economy. US Secretary of Defence
Robert Gates made a grand tour of countries supposedly threatened by
Russia (in addition to visiting his new friends in Kosovo), though
only the woebegone Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili bothered
meeting him at the airport. This darling of the West -- and Israel --
suddenly found himself friendless after his disastrous altercation
with his neighbour. Even Israel pulled in its horns, cutting off its
lucrative arms sales out of fear of Russia.
Little more than a month later, the storm clouds over Russia seem
to have dispersed. Europe again began improving relations, with a
Euro-Russia summit in November, followed by renewed negotiations on
a strateg ic partnership and a renewal of Russian-NATO dialogue in
December. The Bush administration was not amused, but then lame-duck
President George W Bush has about as many friends these days as
Saakashvili.
It was amusing watching NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
jumping through hoops, so to speak, in early December after a NATO
foreign ministers meeting, as he explained the alliance's decision
to begin "a conditional and graduated re-engagement" with Moscow,
despite strident disapproval from Washington, not to mention Moscow's
own strident disapproval of NATO moves to absorb Ukraine and Georgia,
and after its spectacular assertion of authority in its "near
abroad" with the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia
and Abhazia. The Hoop argued, "Russia is such an important factor
in geopolitical terms that there is no alternative for NATO than to
engage Russia." He innocently claimed he had no idea why Russia felt
"victimised, not to be taken seriously, but if that is the perception,
we have to discuss it, because I have to try to convince them that
democracy and the rule of law are coming closer to Russia's borders --
why should that be a problem?"
As if he actually believes that NATO is about the tired clichés of
democracy and freedom that are used to justify this Cold War relic, and
not about US empire and its attempt to end a ny residual opposition,
especially in the oil-rich Eurasian space, which Russia just happens
to control.
So why the sudden courtship of the Russian ogre? De Hoop said it was
because of Afghanistan, fighting terrorism and narcotics. We could
add the financial crisis as well. But towering over even that is the
very frightening spectre of another arms race between the two -- yes
two -- superpowers which Europe is uncomfortably sandwiched between.
It's as if Don Juan realised too late that his latest flame -- his
true love this time -- was wise to him and had decided the jig was
up. Defying the US, de Hoop Scheffer and his Euro diplos realised
their place was the tried and true middle path between the two big
guys. He did his best to pretend that nothing really was wrong,
but no one was fooled. "I'm basically an engager," de Hoop Scheffer
said. "But engagement can't take place in the context of spheres of
influence. We have to see if Georgia is a watershed or not. I hope
not, and I'll do my best that it will not be." Sorry, de Hoop. You
closed the barn door too late. Your beloved has bolted.
The emissary of the spurned lover, Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitri
Rogozin, welcomed the decision to resume informal talks with Russia,
saying, with not a little sarcasm, "I personally do not see the
difference between formal and informal sittings, exce pt that you
don't have coffee in an informal meeting but you still can order
one." Rogozin also said that the decision not to give a formal action
plan to Georgia and Ukraine showed that relations with Russia were
more important to NATO than either applicant. He predicted that NATO
would retreat from admitting Georgia and Ukraine, a prospect that
"does not cheer anyone in the alliance." Rogozin said that "there is
an open split within NATO, and it will widen if NATO tries to expand
further. The schemes of those who adopted a frozen approach to Russia
have been destroyed." Words that left Don Juan apoplectic. The Hoop
shot back that Rogozin could say what he liked, and American officials
dismissed his comments as bluster aimed at a domestic audience.
Upping the ante, in the NATO meeting's final communiqué, which
went through 22 drafts, the foreign ministers gave their unanimous
support to the planned deployment in Europe of US missile defenses,
which Washington continues to say are for protection from Iran, not
Russia. Reading from a script retrieved from history's dustbin, the
ministers called the missile system "a substantial contribution" to
defense and encouraged Russia to take up US proposals for cooperation
on missile defence, oblivious to US president-elect Obama's own
scepticism about the system, or the comments last month by French
President Nicolas Sarkozy that the missile defense would "bring
nothing to security" but "would complicate things and make them move
backward," or Russia's threat to install short-range missiles of its
own in Kaliningrad.
As for Russian President Dmitri Medvedev's proposed talks on a new
"security architecture" for Europe -- which Sarkozy agreed to in
November -- de Hoop Scheffer said that NATO members were "quite happy
with the security structure as it exists in Europe. There is not a
shimmer of a chance that NATO could or would be negotiated away." The
Euro fans of America and foes of Russia see the Russian president's
proposals as a direct attempt to undermine NATO. And so what? The
only way to make peace with Russia is to do what should have been
done 17 years ago, when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded: dismantle
its twin and build a European partnership from the Atlantic to the
Pacific, minus the US and Canada. There is something called the
United Nations where everyone can get together. The EU and Russia
are already working together on peacekeeping -- through the UN --
as seen with the current EUFOR mission in Chad, which includes 320
Russians. I repeat: Who needs NATO to police the world?
De Hoop drew his line in the sand at a news conference with Georgian
Foreign Minister Eka Tkeshelashvili. She expressed satisfaction with
the outcome of the meeting, in which ministers reconfirmed that Georgia
and Ukraine would eventually become members of NATO and said NATO
would accelerate cooperative reform programmes with both countries
through existing NATO commissions. Don't hold your breath, Eka. A lot
can happen between now and "eventually." The US and Germany are at odds
over how further expansion of NATO can proceed, with Germany insisting
on a MAP (Membership Action Plan) and Bush's team arguing that "MAP
has been fetishised." Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried said that this "is not the only way to
get there," wherever "there" is. Instead of a MAP, he has in mind
the NATO-Georgia Commission established hurriedly after 8 August,
modeled after the NATO-Ukraine Commission established in 1997 --
"MAP without MAP," as the German fetishists drolly put it.
But the bottom line on Georgia is that it can't join NATO if it is not
at peace with its neighbours, as this would oblige NATO to go to war
to "defend" it. This argument could even encourage Russia to make a
move on Crimea, putting Ukraine in the same predicament, making it,
too, ineligible. How ironic this would be, given NATO's pretensions
to be a bastion of peace.
As the Hoop performed his verbal acrobatics, the EU was performing its
own highwire act with Russia, renewing negotiations on a new strategic
partnership. But with a nod to US desires to keep moving eastward come
hell or high water, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso
also outlined to the press the EU's proposed new "Eastern Partnership"
with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus,
the latest move into the ex-Soviet bloc since the EU expanded in 2004
and 2007 to embrace the Baltics and all the former Warsaw Pact nations.
The partnership offers free trade deals, closer energy ties, easier
access to visas and financial assistance programmes worth a total
of 600 EUR million over two years. To their bitter disappointment,
EU-member hopefuls Ukraine and Moldova were lumped together with the
others, indicating that their applications were on hol
Interesting, the supposed rush to get Ukraine and Georgia into NATO
and the procrastination over them joining the much more important
economic organisation. The Eastern Partnership was a response to
Sarkozy's Mediterranean Union, bringing all the Mediterranean countries
together with the EU in a loose economic club, and was put on fast
track after the war in Georgia in August. Barroso denied suggestions
that the EU was seeking to establish itself as an alternative power
centre to Moscow. "The Cold War is over," said Barroso, "and where
there is no Cold War, there should be no spheres of interest." Who
does he think he's kidding?
But Russia has no beef with EU expansion, which can only benefit Moscow
in the long run. In fact, it is not inconceivable that Russia itself
could join this economic pact, which clearly benefits one and all,
at least economically. This cannot be said of NATO. De Hoop Scheffer
understandably wants to keep his prestige (and pension), but this is
one endangered species that deserves extinction.
As NATO prepares the fireworks for its big 60th anniversary, its plans
for Georgia and Ukraine are in disarray and its war in Afghanistan
is a nightmare which could tear the organisation apart in 2009. Happy
anniversary.
--Boundary_(ID_KHbO8LQNMRj3P4o LvTkEfA)--