sasha_bogdanov Александр Богданов Саша Богданов (sasha_bogdanov) wrote,
sasha_bogdanov Александр Богданов Саша Богданов
sasha_bogdanov

Германия и Франция- против включения Украины и Грузии в состав НАТО. Крупная победа евробезопасности

Крупнейшая победа европейской солидарности и принципов европейской безопасности в классическом понимании стран Старой Европы - публичный отказ от политики конфронтации с новой Россией, несмотря на беспрецедентный нажим и пропагандистские атаки со стороны уходящего руководства США.

Франция и Германия официально заявили, что не поддерживают вступление Украины и Грузии в НАТО на нынешней сессии НАТО в Бухаресте.

Редкая ситуация в новейшей внешней политике, когда блокирование неправильного решения от имени альянса НАТО произошло до, а не после самых негативных результатов такого решения.

Страны Старой Европы показали, что они считают, что лимит на политические ошибки у НАТО в Европе исчерпан.

Военный инструмент политики США в Единой Европе по мнению правительств и народов этих стран - уже избыточен и опасен. НАТО не должен быть априори всегда инструментом  американской политики и американского давления в Европе. 

 

Достаточно привести в пример довольно неприятную инициативу США по установлению собственной, чисто американской системы противоракетной обороны в Чехии и в Польше, минуя процедуры принятия такого решения структурами ЕС, Европарламента и Европейского политического совета НАТО. 

Если решение о санкциях по мясу или транзиту принимается органами Евросоюза совместно и коллегиально, то и принятие решения об установления нового района противоракетной обороны в Европе должно  приниматься не просто США и Чехией или США и Польшей. По мнению членов  Европарламента и европейских правительств и политиков, например, бывшего канцлера ФРГ  Шрёдера, такое решение о противоракетах должны  принимать структуры собственно Единой Европы, а не Администрация США. 

Правительства Германии и Франции приняли решение не поддерживать вступление Украины и Грузии в НАТО именно во имя того, чтобы не оказаться  снова заложниками новой холодной войны в Европе по инициативе не самой умной Администрации в истории США - Администрации Президента Буша младшего, которая к тому же проводит обвальную и провальную конфронтационную политику в Ираке, за которую уже расплачиваются не только США, но и многие страны НАТО. Демонстративное продавливание  односторонней независимости албанского государства в Косово со стороны США - шаг, который не дал никаких положительных результатов для поддержания стабильности и согласия в Европе, тоже послужил ярким примером, после которого старая дипломатия Старой Европы отказалась участвовать в  политической авантюре американского правительства и нагнетанию конфронтации с Россией.   


April 3, 2008

NATO Allies Oppose Bush on Georgia and Ukraine

 

By STEVEN ERLANGER and STEVEN LEE MYERS

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

 

BUCHAREST, Romania — President Bush threw the NATO summit meeting here off-script on Wednesday with his firm public disagreement with two key allies, Germany and France, over how close a relationship the organization should have with Ukraine and Georgia, who aspire to membership.

 

Mr. Bush’s position — that Ukraine and Georgia should be welcomed into a Membership Action Plan, or MAP, that prepares nations for NATO membership — directly contradicted German and French government positions stated earlier this week.

 

But Mr. Bush was described by one senior American official as wanting to “lay down a marker” for his legacy as his presidency winds down, and as not wanting to “lose faith” with the Ukrainian and Georgian peoples and the other former republics of the Soviet Union.

 

Mr. Bush, speaking in advance of the meeting, said he was prepared to argue his case at a dinner of all NATO leaders on Wednesday night, before a decision is made on Ukraine and Georgia on Thursday. Germany and France have said they will block any invitation to Ukraine and Georgia.

“This is my final NATO summit,” Mr. Bush said. Referring to both Ukraine and Georgia’s democratic revolutions, he said: “Welcoming them into the Membership Action Plan would send a signal to their citizens that if they continue on the path to democracy and reform they will be welcomed into the institutions of Europe. It would send a signal throughout the region” — read Russia — “that these two nations are, and will remain, sovereign and independent states.”

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, was described as upset and even angry on Wednesday by some German officials. She and Mr. Bush have had numerous conversations over the last two months about the issue, and Ms. Merkel had thought that a compromise solution was in the works. That was that Washington would support a warm statement welcoming the interest of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO and encouraging them to work toward a MAP membership in time for NATO’s 60th anniversary summit next year in Berlin.

 

Germany and France believe that since neither Ukraine nor Georgia is stable enough to enter the program now, a membership plan would be an unnecessary offense to Russia, which firmly opposes the move. In fact, senior diplomats here said, the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, has threatened to cancel his planned first-ever visit to the NATO meeting on Friday if the two former Soviet states enter the MAP program.

 

Ms. Merkel visited Moscow on March 8 and met both Mr. Putin and his elected successor, Dmitri A. Medvedev, who takes over in May. She told them that Russia would not be allowed a veto over NATO membership. But a senior German diplomat, Wolfgang Ischinger, said that a MAP offer to a divided Ukraine could destabilize the new government there, and that not enough diplomacy had taken place beforehand with Russia.

 

Mr. Ischinger, Germany’s ambassador to London, noted that Mr. Bush and both Russian leaders would meet after the NATO summit meeting in Sochi, a Russian resort on the Black Sea, and said: “It’s the absence of this discussion that makes me wonder if NATO has done enough of its homework at this point on this front.”

Germany, he said, supported an “open-door policy” for NATO, including the offer of full membership at this summit to the Western Balkan nations of Croatia, Albania and Macedonia, and later to Ukraine and Georgia. But Germany felt that Ukraine and Georgia were not now ready even for a MAP plan.

 

The American position is supported by the newer members of NATO from the old Eastern Europe, with Romanian, Estonian and Latvian leaders emphasizing that MAP is a set of difficult requirements for NATO membership, including internal political and military reforms and guarantees of civil liberties, and can take a decade to fulfill.

 

“MAP is more of a big stick than a big carrot,” said the Estonian president, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, at a conference here of the German Marshall Fund. “It forces nations to reform even when they don’t want to do it.” The Latvian president, Valdis Zatlers, warned that delay to MAP delayed crucial internal debates. “No action plan, no action,” he said. “If we delay, we postpone the inevitable. We have to give MAP.”

 

Ronald Asmus, who was a key figure in the Clinton administration’s enlargement of NATO and now runs the German Marshall Fund’s Brussels office, said that “Bush’s speech set up a dramatic battle that will be fought out over the next two days and whose outcome will be important in shaping his legacy, and America’s diplomatic standing in the alliance.”

 

Mr. Asmus said that success was possible short of the Membership Action Plan, but said that the summit needed to “send a strong enough signal to the countries to deepen their reforms and to Moscow not to increase its pressure on them.” Failure, he said, “would be a statement that produces no pressure to reform and that Moscow reads as a pale green light to ratchet up the pressure.”

 

Mircea Geoana, a former Romanian foreign minister, pointed out that in 1997, Romania and Slovenia were urged to wait by Washington before entering MAP but were given a “rendezvous clause” in a NATO communiqué that led to MAP later on.

 

A senior German official pointed out with some exasperation that Ms. Merkel was using the same argument now as Washington did then. But of course President Bush is not President Clinton, and President Putin is not President Boris Yeltsin, and Russia appears to be moving away from the West now, not toward it.

 

Derek Chollet, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, said that Mr. Bush’s speech was “a combination of valedictory and marker-laying.” Mr. Bush would probably lose the argument on Ukraine and Georgia, Mr. Chollet said. “But he doesn’t care so much, and he believes he’s on the right side of the issue.”

 

Getting NATO support for more troops in Afghanistan and for a limited European missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic is probably more important to Mr. Bush before the meeting with Mr. Putin, Mr. Asmus and Mr. Chollet both said.

 

In his speech, Mr. Bush urged the alliance to “maintain its resolve and finish the fight” in Afghanistan and to deploy more troops there to combat the Taleban, Al Qaeda and other threats around the world.

 

With the war in Afghanistan now in its seventh year, and 47,000 NATO troops already there, Mr. Bush used the speech and a later press conference to remind the alliance of the threat of terrorism to the entire West. "We expect our NATO allies to shoulder the burden necessary to succeed," he said, appearing with Romania’s president, Traian Basescu, at a Black Sea retreat.

 

France has said that it will send “several hundred” more troops, probably to Afghanistan’s east, Poland and Romania will also send more troops, and Washington is sending another 3,200 marines. But a full accounting of any additional troops will not be clear until Thursday; Canada had said it would consider pulling its troops out of the dangerous south unless other countries provided another 1,000 soldiers.

 

The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, said on Wednesday he “is very confident” Canada will get the reinforcements it needs. "We’ll see what the French decide, they made no commitment to us or to NATO," Mr. Harper said, adding that: "Anything France does, it is a victory, a step forward."

 

The summit opened with no resolution to an alliance embarrassment. Greece continued to say that it would oppose Macedonia’s membership in NATO because of a failure to agree on a new formal name for the country. NATO works by consensus, so continued Greek opposition would mean Macedonia does not join now.

 

In Athens, officials said work continued on the possibility that Macedonia could join NATO under a “provisional new name.” Greece insists that Macedonia alone as a name would allow the tiny country a potential revanchism that could destabilize the Balkans.

Anthee Carassava contributed reporting from Athens.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 3 comments