|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/roger.dnai/97Book/ |
Upload File : |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//SoftQuad//DTD HoTMetaL PRO 4.0::19971010::extensions to HTML 4.0//EN"
"hmpro4.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="GENERATOR"
CONTENT="Mozilla/4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K) [Netscape]">
<TITLE>Michael Portillo</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" BGPROPERTIES="FIXED">
<CENTER><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+3">NATO:
Risks as Well as Opportunities</FONT></FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+2">The
Right Honorable Michael Portillo</FONT></FONT></FONT> </CENTER>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">At the present time, NATO
has much to celebrate. Two years ago its leading members were locked in
disagreement over Bosnia, and the organization appeared powerless to halt
the slaughter. The end of the Cold War had removed NATO's reason for
existence and the Alliance had yet to discover a new role and purpose.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER>
<H4><B><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">NATO TODAY</FONT></FONT></B></H4></CENTER>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Things look different now.
NATO took effective action in Bosnia, first by bombing the Bosnian Serbs
following the massacres in Sarajevo, and then by deploying large-scale
ground forces in support of the Dayton Agreement. The effort was a
thoroughly effective operation, which in itself defined a new role for
NATO: promoting security beyond the territory of its members. NATO has
begun to reorganize itself in line with that new role, and to tempt France
and Spain into the Alliance's integrated military system.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Over the recent period
there has been a flattering rush of Central and Eastern European countries
seeking NATO membership as well as skillful negotiations that have
overcome the substantial obstacles to a NATO-Russia agreement. These
successes will rightly be celebrated at the Madrid Summit, particularly
the enlargement of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact countries. While our
Russian friends have protested loudly and launched a most effective
campaign to woo opinion makers and editors in the West, and have succeeded
in convincing many that NATO's enlargement to Russia's borders would be an
affront to Russian pride and therefore a source of future instability, I
see enlargement differently. I believe that we must not allow the world to
be frozen in the Yalta pattern of 1945. Stability in Europe depends mainly
on entrenching the new democracies. And they will flourish only if they
feel secure. As NATO members they will feel secure. There are more
democracies in Europe today than ever before, but since democracies do not
invade each other, the prospects for stability are correspondingly good.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER>
<H4><B><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">CHALLENGES OF THE
FUTURE</FONT></FONT></B></H4></CENTER>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">The admission of new
member-states to NATO is an historic achievement, and the agreement with
Russia is a triumph of diplomacy. But Russia and NATO both know that the
Alliance faces important challenges in the near future. We hope that the
champagne drunk in Madrid will leave NATO Ministers clearheaded enough to
deal with these challenges adroitly.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER>
<H4><B><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Defining NATO's Role</FONT></FONT></B></H4></CENTER>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">One of these challenges is
that NATO has not properly redefined its purpose. What threat to European
security justifies such sophisticated military preparation? The Russians
believe that NATO exists now, as before, to counter Russia. NATO denies
it. The Western European public no longer feels threatened by Russia--or
by anyone else--and European governments therefore continue to cut their
defense spending.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">We believe that Russia
will remain democratic and pose no risk to security. We are more likely to
be threatened by one of the militant dictatorships now developing weapons
of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, and exporting terrorism. As
the Gulf War demonstrated, to protect our allies or our interests, we may
need to fight in high-intensity conflicts far from home. NATO must
articulate its purpose better and stop cutting its defenses. Otherwise
dictators will think us weak-willed, and that could be dangerous.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">The debate about enlarged
security and the correct defense identity for Europe risks being only a
sideshow. Europeans ought to do more for themselves but they will not be
able to if they spend less. It is important to keep America involved in
Europe, but while we can find posts for European commanders at top levels
in NATO, we must not risk creating confused chains of command that would
be ineffective in an emergency.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">NATO has passed through a
period of self-congratulation. There is a whiff of decadence about an
organization that spends so much time contemplating how it is structured,
rather than what it can do. I am afraid that NATO members have hollowed
out their forces. In the future, ministers' meetings should focus on
assessing the risks to peace, making a realistic analysis of how well we
could respond, and on applying pressure to ourselves to bring our forces
and equipment up to standard. That applies to new members too. We have not
yet given enough attention to their military capabilities, to ensure that
they can strengthen the Alliance's effectiveness and credibility. Spending
approximately 2% of GDP on defense is not consistent with the major
problems of transition that new members face.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">NATO must not begin to
think of itself as a peacekeeping or peace-enforcement organization. It
must remain capable of military operations at the top end of the spectrum.
One difficulty is that the United States, alone within the Alliance, has
the C4I capability to provide battlefield superiority and the most potent
force multiplier. Unless ways are found to bring the other Allies up to
that standard, the Alliance risks becoming increasingly non-interoperable
as the capability gap widens. Given the value of NATO to the United
States, the challenge is to find the means to prevent such a destructive
technology gulf from persisting.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">The enlargement of NATO is
both a triumph and a problem. More applicant countries will be refused
than admitted. To those disappointed now, the Alliance offers the prospect
of further admissions in years to come. But even if applicants meet all
our criteria, they have no guarantee of being let in. Ratifying the first
enlargement in the parliaments of member-states won't be easy, so those
who do not enter NATO now may fear that NATO may be wary of proposing
further additions to its numbers in the medium term. NATO has been careful
to offer the prospect of membership to the countries that were once part
of the Soviet Union. Doing so provides important reassurance. But we must
recognize that the countries that are not offered membership in Madrid may
feel more out in the cold than before. Paradoxically, NATO's expansion to
the East may reduce these countries' sense of security.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">NATO must develop a
strategy to make the Baltic countries, for example, feel that while NATO
is not willing to extend to them the protection of Article 5, their
sovereignty nonetheless matters to NATO. NATO should be prepared to make
some "substantive gestures." Perhaps we could establish a NATO
university of peace studies in Vilnius, have a prestigious annual
NATO-sponsored lecture in Riga, and set up a Baltic security organization
office in Tallinn. We would of course also develop a similar consideration
for Ukraine.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER>
<H4><B><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">Withdrawal from
Bosnia</FONT></FONT></B></H4></CENTER>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">A more immediate challenge
is that of Bosnia. NATO forces have done a superb job there and provided a
pilot study of how to work with Russia and other non-NATO countries. But
NATO proposes to withdraw its forces in summer 1998, and the former
warring factions appear to be counting the days and procrastinating on
nation-building.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">The continued liberty of
those indicted for war crimes makes the situation worse. While I
understand that NATO forces do not wish to become policemen nor give up
their valued reputation for evenhandedness, it is inconceivable that NATO
should withdraw leaving these people at large and in positions of
influence. The damage to NATO's prestige would be incalculable. I
therefore believe that a NATO objective should be seeing that those who
have been indicted are brought to justice in the Hague.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">We should also be frank
about NATO's "arm and train" policy. It was well-intentioned at
its instigation, because the Serbs were clearly better armed and more
militarily effective than the Bosnians. But the policy now risks producing
an imbalance in favor of the Bosnians, which could be just as
destabilizing.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">If NATO were to withdraw
leaving Karadzic in control of the Serbs and under conditions in which war
could be quickly reignited, the impact on the Alliance's reputation would
be devastating. For that reason it is difficult to see how NATO can
actually pull out. I recognize the dilemma and the difficulty for the U.S.
administration. The U.S. Congress appears to be in earnest about requiring
withdrawal. But NATO must make it clear, at the least, as General Joulwan
has proposed, that it will not tolerate a return to violence in Bosnia.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER>
<H4><B><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">CONCLUDING REMARKS</FONT></FONT></B></H4></CENTER>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000">While glasses are raised
in celebration in Madrid, NATO Ministers must work hard to ensure that
Bosnia is not again the cause of division among the Allies nor a symbol of
NATO's impotence.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><A HREF="PORTIL.HTM">Go
to top of Page</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><A HREF="workshop97.htm">Return
to Prague '97</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT FACE="Palatino"><FONT COLOR="#000000"><A HREF="../index.html">Return
to Home Page</A></FONT></FONT> </P>
</BODY>
</HTML>